alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Air Force recognizes Safe and Sound WeekPublished Aug. 5, 2020
                        
                        By Susan Merhege
                        
                        
                        Air Force Safety Center
                **KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFNS) --**
                For the third year in a row, the United States Air Force is partnering with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to promote Safe and Sound Week. Taking place Aug. 10-16, this annual event raises awareness for workplace safety and serves as a reminder to find and fix workplace hazards before they become an issue.
“The Department of the Air Force is proud to be one of more than 3,300 organizations and businesses who participated in Safe and Sound Week last year,” said Mike Ballard, Air Force chief of occupational safety. “We expect that number will be just as high for 2020, in light of the fact that workplace safety and health has been pushed to the forefront even more so with COVID-19.”
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 5,000 workers are killed on the job (a rate of 14 per day), and more than 3.6 million suffer a serious job-related injury or illness every year. The Air Force lost seven Airmen to occupational (ground) mishaps in 2019. This is more than twice the average for the last five years (an average of three per year since 2015).
The Safe and Sound ideology is built around worker participation, management leadership and effective strategies for finding and fixing hazards.
During the week of Aug. 10-16, Airmen and Space Professionals are encouraged to take some simple actions to advance the safety or health culture of their workplaces. Examples include walking the jobsite to identify hazards, displaying job safety posters, conducting a short safety meeting or recognizing workers who meet or exceed safety or health goals.
Air and Space Force members can share their participation in Safe and Sound Week on social media by using the following hashtags: #SafeAndSoundAtWork and #AFSafeAndSound.
For more information on how to participate, visit: https://www.safety.af.mil/Divisions/Occupational-Safety-Division/Safe-Sound/. OSHA’s Safe + Sound site: https://www.osha.gov/safeandsound/.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



safety 



Safe and Sound Week 



AFCEC 



Air Force Safety Center 



OSHA 



Occupational Safety and Health Administration 



workplace 



hazards
#### Gershom Smith *versus*The New-York Insurance Company.

*Oct.*Term, 1828.

Where an important witness is absent from the country, and will not return until' several terms have elapsed, this court will put off a cause for a reasonable period, notwithstanding the delay may comprehend more than one term.

*Mr. O. Hoffman,*for the defendants,

moved to put off the trial of this cause for several terms. He read an affidavit, showing that an important witness for the defendants was absent at sea, and was not expected to return for some months to come; but he would return before a commission could reach him, or be of service.

*Per Curiam.*

The motion is no more than reasonable when addressed to this court, which sets at such short intervals, that witnesses who are absent have little chance of return before the cause is brought to trial. In the Supreme Court, where the terms are several months apart, a different practice may well prevail, and there it may be sufficient in general to put off a cause from term to term only. But the witness in this cause cannot be expected to return, considering the place to which he is gone, before the time specified in the plaintiff’s affidavit, and of course, not until long after the next term of this court. As that time is reasonable, considering the circumstances of the case, the motion must be granted.

*Motion granted.*

[E. Anthon, *Att'y for the plff.*Hoffman and Tallman, *Att'ys*for defts.]
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00077

- CR

AARON LAMON MUSE, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court Wood County, Texas Trial Court No. 20,589

- 2009

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Aaron Lamon Muse filed a notice of appeal April 2 , 201 4 , attempting to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion for the discovery of grand jury testimony

. The clerk’s record filed in this matter establishes that in early 2009, Muse was charged by indictment with aggravated robbery. On February 6, 2013, the State filed a motion to dismiss its aggravated robbery case against Muse on the basis that he had been convicted in another case for the same conduct . On February 11, 2013, the 402nd Judicial District Court of Wood County granted the State’s motion and dismissed the case

— trial court cause number 20,589

- 2009. On March 18, 2014, Muse filed a Motion for Dis covery of Grand Jury Testimony with the Wood County District Clerk under cause number 20,589

- 2009. On March 19, 2014, the trial court signed an order overrulin g Muse’s motion. This is Muse’s attempt to appeal from that ruling. By letter dated May 2 , 201 4 , we notified Muse of a potential defect in our jurisdiction over his appeal

— namely, that the order from which he was attempting to appeal is not an appealable order

— and afforded him fifteen days to show this Court how we had jurisdiction. We received no response from Muse. This Court has jurisdiction over criminal appeals only when expressly granted by law.
T EX
. C ONST
. art. V, § 6; Everett v. State , 91 S.W.3d 386, 386 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2002, no pet.) (per curiam) . A timely notice of appeal from a judgme nt of conviction or an appealable order is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Because there is no judgment or appealable order in the record from which a timely3 appeal could be perfe cted, we are without jurisdiction over the appeal and have no choice but to dismiss it. In light of the foregoing, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: June 2 , 2014 Date Decided: June 3 , 2014 Do Not Publish
Order entered October 31, 2022 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01053-CV 

IN RE QUALITY CLEANING PLUS, INC., Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 134th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-08606 

ORDER 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Partida-Kipness, and Justice Smith 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we CONDITIONALLY 

GRANT relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in part and DIRECT the trial 

court to vacate its post-August 24, 2022 discovery orders. We DENY all other 

relief requested by relator in its petition. 

We further ORDER the trial court to file with this Court, within ten days of 

the date of this order, a certified copy of its order issued in compliance with this 

order and with the Court’s opinion of this date. Should the trial court fail to 

comply with this order, the writ will issue. 
We VACATE our October 7, 2022 order staying discovery. 

/s/ CRAIG SMITH 

 JUSTICE
#### FREDERICK KOESTER v. HUNTERDON COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION.

March 14, 1978.

Petition for certification granted.
012-Loan Contract 20130313


 


 


Exhibit 4.29








English Translation for Reference





 


Loan
Contract


  


Party A (Lender): Agria Brother Biotech
(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.


 


Party B (Borrower): Lai Fulin with ID card
number: [Redacted]


 


Party A and Party B have reached the following
agreement in respect of the provision of a loan by Party A to Party B after friendly consultation:


 





		1.	Loan
                                         Amount: Party A shall lend to Party B a loan of Renminbi One Million And Five Hundred
                                         Thousand (¥1,500,000).


 


		2.	Term: The loan shall be for a term of three years from the date hereof, and may be extended upon
its expiry after mutual consultation.



 


		3.	Use of the Loan: Party B undertakes that the loan will be used for investment in Shenzhen PGW Seeds
Co., Ltd. and shall be in compliance with the relevant laws and regulations. Otherwise, Party A shall have the right to discharge
this Loan Contract unilaterally and request Party B to assume the liabilities for breach of contract.



 


		4.	Equity Pledge: All equity interests owned by Party B in Shenzhen PGW Seeds Co., Ltd. shall be pledged
as security.



 


		5.	Liabilities for Breach of Contract: If a party violates this Contract, the other party shall have
the right to discharge it and request the defaulting party to make compensation for any loss arising therefrom.



 


		6.	Termination of this Contract: After the termination or discharge of this Contract, Party B shall
return the loan to Party A within five working days. In the event of any late return, Party B shall pay to Party A any interest
accrued thereon at a loan interest rate stipulated by banks for the corresponding period.



 


		7.	Dispute Resolution: Any disputes arisen during the performance of this Contract shall be resolved
by the parties through consultation. In the event that no agreement can be reached through consultation, such dispute shall be
referred to China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission for arbitration. The seat of arbitration shall be Shenzhen.
The arbitral award shall be final and binding upon the parties.



 


		8.	If any provision of this Contract becomes invalid, it shall not affect the validity of the other
provisions hereof.



 


		9.	This Contract is executed in two originals and each of the parties shall keep one original. All
of them shall have the same legal effect.



 


		10.	This Contract shall become effective after it is signed and sealed by Party A and signed by Party
B.



 




    	 



    	 



    

 


012-Loan Contract 20130313


 


 


Party A: Agria Brother Biotech (Shenzhen)
Co., Ltd.


 


[Chop of Agria Brother Biotech (Shenzhen)
Co., Ltd. is affixed]


 


/s/


 


Party B: Lai Fulin


 


/s/ Lai Fulin


 


Date of execution: March 13, 2013
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-1368

LT Case No. 2019-CF-024616-A

_____________________________

TERENCE WILLIAM LAAKSO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County.

John D. Watson, Judge.

Kepler B. Funk, Keith F. Szachacz, and Alan S. Diamond, of 

Funk, Szachacz & Diamond, LLC, Melbourne, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberts J. 

Bradford, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee.

July 30, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS, C.J., and SOUD and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
```

                                                                    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 amended Quarterly Report of VSUS Technologies
Incorporated (the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB/A for the three and six-month
periods ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), we, Eliyahu Kissos,
President and Director, and Steven Goldberg, Chief Financial Officer and
Director of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.

By: /s/ Eliyahu Kissos
    -----------------------------------------
        Eliyahu Kissos
        President and Director
        Dated this 2nd day of September, 2005

By: /s/ Steven Goldberg
    -----------------------------------------
        Steven Goldberg
        Chief Financial Officer and Director
        Dated this 2nd day of September, 2005
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                THE WRONG WAY TO GO WITH SOCIAL SECURITY

  (Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are solving 
something that has bothered all the people, but I do not think they are 
doing it the right way. Older people have complained to me; I am not 
talking about the wealthy older people who will be the beneficiaries of 
the Republican tax cuts but the average older person for whom Social 
Security is a major part of their income. And they have complained 
that, as the Social Security cost of living has gone up, Medicare has 
come and taken it away. And they have been virtually equal in many 
cases.
  Well, no longer under the Republican budget plan will the cost-of-
living increase that older people get be equal to the increase they 
have to pay in Medicare. But the Republicans are solving this in the 
wrong way.
  Older people are going to have to pay more for their Medicare, and 
under the Republican plan they will get less for their Social Security. 
So every year older people will see under the plan an erosion in their 
incomes because the Republicans will reduce the cost of living.
  They want to cut taxes for wealthy older people who will be making 
$150,000 or $200,000 a year, but they will cut the cost of living for 
an older person living on $9,000 or $10,000. That is the wrong way to 
go.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


October 7, 2014


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Strategic Growth & Income
Trust, Series 6


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Strategic Growth & Income Trust, Series 6 set forth above (the “Trust”).
We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our
evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on October 7, 2014, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in
the Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations
of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-198173) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect
to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


	Very truly yours,
	 
	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                               
	Vice President
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIAN ENGEL, an Individual, On

Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly

Situated, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

NOVEX BIOTECH, LLC, a Utah Limited

Liability Company and GNC

CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-15492

D.C. No. 3:114-cv-03457-MEJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 12, 2017

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON,** District

Judge.

 

FILED

APR 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, United States District Judge for the

District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.
Julian Engel appeals from the district court judgment dismissing his second

amended complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

For the reasons stated in a concurrently filed opinion in Serena Kwan, et al.

v. SanMedica International, No. 15-15496,1 the district court correctly applied

established California law. Neither California’s Unfair Competition Law (‘the

UCL”) nor its Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“the CLRA”) provides consumers

with a private cause of action to enforce the substantiation provisions of

California’s unfair competition or consumer protection laws.

As in Kwan, the district court did not err in concluding that Engel’s second

amended complaint did not allege sufficient facts to support a claim that

defendant’s advertising claims were actually false. The second amended complaint

rests on allegations that defendant’s marketing claims are not supported by any

reliable clinical trials and that a comprehensive search could not produce any

publication to support claims that defendant’s product, Growth Factor-9, was

clinically tested as claimed on its packaging. These allegations do not support a

finding that the advertising claims are actually false, only that they lack

1

 For purposes of oral argument only, we consolidated this appeal with the

appeal in Kwan.

2
substantiation. As it did in Kwan, the district court appropriately declined Engel’s

invitation to incorporate Lanham Act analysis into California consumer protection

law. The district court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss Engel’s second

amended complaint.

Further, as in Kwan, the district court provided ample guidance for Engel to

allege successfully a claim of actual falsehood when it dismissed the first amended

complaint with leave to amend. Therefore, the court did not err in dismissing the

second amended complaint with prejudice.

AFFIRMED.

3
# News

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

# Air Force S&T team deepens partnership with Carnegie Mellon University Center of Excellence

              - Published  May 1, 2019
              -                             By  Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs                                                    

**ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --  **
The Air Force announced May 1 it will deepen its partnership with Carnegie Mellon University by embedding a 10-person science and technology team focused on robotics and associated technologies affiliated with Carnegie Mellon University’s Center of Excellence.

The Air Force team will be located at CMU to work through the center to connect with faculty from across the university and take advantage of CMU’s cutting-edge research and education.

The announcement followed a recent visit to the center by Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson. The meetings between Wilson and CMU officials underscored the changes that can advance robotics and associated technologies within the Air Force.

“Our new science and technology strategy emphasizes driving innovation through partnerships. Carnegie Mellon has been a partner with the Air Force for many years and this is the next step to deepen that partnership,” Wilson said.

Wilson said the team will put into action the recently published Air Force Science and Technology Strategy by better identifying, developing and deploying breakthrough technologies. It also will give Air Force personnel a path to expand their expertise through academic research.

“Carnegie Mellon is excited to engage in this new partnership with the U.S. Air Force, which represents yet another milestone in our 60-year history of collaboration in software engineering, AI, autonomous systems and advanced manufacturing,” said Farnam Jahanian, CMU president. “We look forward to continuing to advance research and education in these emerging fields, which are so critical to the security and economic competitiveness of our nation.”

The Air Force Research Laboratory and CMU partnered in October 2018 to establish the Center of Excellence. The goal of the Center of Excellence is to support the Air Force’s vision of a future where intelligent machines are seamlessly integrated with human capabilities. CMU currently has 28 agreements and grants from the Air Force worth $37.3 million.

The Air Force collaborates with research universities and national laboratories around the U.S., including a machine learning-focused Center of Excellence at the University of Wisconsin and a high strength materials-focused Center of Excellence at Cornell University, as well as technology partnerships with Purdue University, Michigan State University and more.

“We need a lasting partnership between our military and academic institutions to seed the next generation of scientists and engineers to tackle the most complex challenges facing our nation,” Wilson said.

FSSecAFpartnershipCarnegie Mellon UniversityCenter of ExcellencesciencetechnologyroboticsCMUSecretary of the Air ForceSecretary of the Air Force Heather WilsonAFAir Forceresearcheducation