alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 MyVector updates help connect Airmen, GuardiansPublished Oct. 18, 2021
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --**
                To help advance **diversity** efforts across the force, MyVector has recently added several features to the platform.
MyVector is one of the many tools Airmen and Guardians can use to enhance their career development, including tracking personal development and assignments, writing performance evaluations, and connecting with mentors as well as mentoring others.
Last summer, the **Secretary of the Air Force** stood up the Diversity and Inclusion task force to address the issue of racial, ethnic and other demographic disparities and their impact on the forces. The task force identified MyVector’s mentorship platform as an area that could help expand diversity efforts. Having more specific filters, such as race, ethnicity and disability, allows Airmen and Guardians to better tailor searches to their specific needs.
“The objective of expanding the mentoring filters in MyVector is to provide a better search experience for Airmen and Guardians to locate potential mentors with similar backgrounds,” explained Dr. Carrie Baker, a member of the SAF Office of Diversity and Inclusion. “We noticed that the mentor request fields had limited search features and wanted to enhance this valuable resource.”
Lt. Col. Cindy Roberts, one of the leaders within the task force, explained that the new filters also applied to those in the Exceptional Family Member Program, or those who have identified themselves as having a disability, such as hearing loss or invisible wounds. The disability filter allows approximately 1,000 Airmen and Guardians who have identified themselves with a disability or an invisible wound to connect with other Airmen and Guardian mentors who have an identified disability.
These MyVector additions will advance Department of the Air Force inclusion practices to incorporate as many aspects of mentorship as possible and make it easier for members to find the best mentor for their needs.
“There may be someone out there struggling with a topic, but there’s no one near them to connect with, discuss their problem, or provide advice,” Roberts said. “These new filters help narrow down the search for a mentor that can best assist someone seeking advice on their unique topic.”AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Airmen 



guardians 



MyVector 



diversity 



career development 



racial 



ethnic 



demographic disparities 



Exceptional Family Member Program 



Disabilities 



mentorship
Exhibit 13.1



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
58.com Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2018, as amended by Amendment No.1 thereto (the “Report”), I, Jinbo Yao,
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 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



June 29, 2018



|/s/ Jinbo Yao |                        
|------------- | -----------------------
|Name:         | Jinbo Yao              
|Title:        | Chief Executive Officer
SCWC-11-0000374 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. JOHN N. AMIRAL, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-11-0000374; CASE NO. 1DTI-10-123021) ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant’s Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on June 4, 2013, is hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument.

The parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, July 15, 2013.
Kevin O’Grady for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000374 15-JUL-2013 02:55 PM
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: SECAF’s Operational Imperatives, ACC Names Lead Wings, Tuskegee Airman Passes at 102Published Jan. 28, 2022
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Jevon Smith
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                This week’s look Around the Air Force highlights Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall’s Operational Imperatives, Air Combat Command names units for the Lead Wing concept of operations, and Brig. Gen. Charles E. McGee, one of the legendary Tuskegee Airmen, passes away at age 102. (Hosted by Tech. Sgt. Eric Mann)



For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:**- Kendall Outlines ‘Operational Imperatives,’ Choices During Think Tank Appearance****- Air Combat Command names Lead Wings****- Tuskegee Airman, Air Force legend passes away at 102**Featured Video 



AFTV 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



Air Force 



AF
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 179 (Thursday, September 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 56553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23111]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality


Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C., appendix 2), announcement is made of a Health Care 
Policy and Research Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting.
    A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to 
health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available, to conduct on 
an as needed basis, scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ 
support.
    Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly-scheduled 
meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of time. 
Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review meetings 
which require their type of expertise.
    Substantial segments of the upcoming SEP meeting listed below will 
be closed to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 U.S.C., appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(6). Grant applications for the CHIPRA Pediatric Healthcare 
Quality Measures (U18) applications are to be reviewed and discussed at 
this meeting. These discussions are likely to reveal personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the applications. 
This information is exempt from mandatory disclosure under the above-
cited statutes.

    SEP Meeting on: CHIPRA Pediatric Healthcare Quality (U18)
    Date: October 18, 2010 (Open on October 18 from 8:30 a.m. to 
8:45 a.m. and closed for the remainder of the meeting).
    Place: Hilton Washington DC/Rockville, Hotel & Executive Meeting 
Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Conference Room TBD, Rockville, MD 
20852.
    Contact Person: Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, 
agenda or minutes of the nonconfidential portions of this meeting 
should contact Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, 
Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, 
AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room 2038, Rockville, Maryland 20850, 
Telephone (301) 427-1554.
    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as 
priorities dictate.

    Dated: September 7, 2010.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-23111 Filed 9-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before KERN, MORAN, and ALDYKIEWICZ Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Specialist NEAL C. PELACCIO United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20130815

Headquarters, Fort Bliss Timothy P. Hayes, Jr ., Military Judge

Colonel Edward K. Lawson IV, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Major Vincent T. Shuler, JA; Captain Michael A. Millios, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Li eutenant Colonel James L. Varley, JA (on brief).

24 June 2014

---------------------------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION

----------------------------------

Per curiam:

Upon review of the entire record pursu ant to Articl e 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, we note that appellant was charge d with and found guilty of, on divers occasions, without proper authority, selling military prop erty of the United

States of a value greater than $500. * The government alle ged and appellant was found guilty of selling this military property of the United States “to persons who responded to his ads . . .” However, th e evidence in the record does not establish that the value of the military property of the United States so ld to the persons responding to appellant’s ads exceeded $50 0 in any instance. As such, we do not affirm “a value greater than $500.00” and instead affirm “some value.” Our action does not change the penalty la ndscape because appellant wa s tried at a special courtmartial. Our action also does not change the admissible aggravation evidence available to the sentencing authority. In addition, appellan t was sentenced by a

* Appellant personally raised this issue pursuant to United States v. Grostefon , 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982). His other Grostefon submissions do not warrant relief.PELACCIO—ARMY 20130815

2 military judge and, as a matter of logic, we are more likely to be ce rtain of what a military judge would have done as oppos ed to members. Lastly, we have the experience and familiarity with the offens e to reliably determine what sentence would have been imposed at trial. See United States v. Winckelmann , 73 M.J. 11 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (establishing a nonexhausti ve framework to aid in reassessing sentences); United States v. Sales , 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 19 86).

Accordingly, we only affirm so much of the Specifi cation of Charge II as finds that appellant:

did, at or near Fort Bliss, Texas, between on or about 1

December 2012 and on or ab out 12 February 2013, on divers occasions without proper authority, sell to persons who responded to his ads, M4 magazines of some value, military property of the United States.

The finding of guilty of Charge II is AFFI RMED. Considering th e modified finding, we find the sentence as appr oved by the convening author ity is appropriate and is AFFIRMED. All rights, priv ileges, and property, of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of that portion of the fi nding set aside by this decision, are hereby ordered restored.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT:
#### Local Union No. 414, etc., et al. *v.*Town & Country Food Co., Inc.

[No. 19,328.

Filed July 14, 1959.]

*Edward J. Fillenwarth,*of Indianapolis, for appellants.

*669*Nieter*<6 *Smith,*of Ft. Wayne, for appellee.

Myers, P. J.

This is an action which was brought by the appellee against the appellants for a temporary and permanent injunction against the appellants to prevent them from picketing the appellee’s place of business in an unlawful manner, and for damages for destruction caused to appellee’s business by said unlawful picketing. After due notice and a hearing of the evidence on appellee’s petition, the trial court entered an order on April 23, 1959, temporarily enjoining appellants from picketing appellee’s place of business until such time as the court entered a final decree either granting or denying the injunctive relief sought by appellee.

On May 22, 1959, appellants submitted the cause to this court, by filing their transcript with the Clerk, as an appeal from the temporary injunction granted by the trial court pursuant to the provisions of §40-510, Burns’ Ind. Stat.

On June 19, 1959, appellants filed their verified motion for an extension of time in which to file their brief, together with proof of service thereof. In such motion appellants stated that pursuant to the rules of this court they were required to file their brief on or before June 22, 1959. Appellants stated in paragraph one of their motion that “this is an appeal from a temporary injunction in the form of an interlocutory order.” They requested an extension of time of approximately 19 days.

On June 24, 1959, appellee filed its motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that appellants had failed to file their brief in the office of the Clerk within the time permitted by Rule 2-15 of the Rules of the Supreme Court; that appellants’ brief should have been *670filed on or before the 1st day of June, 1959; and not having been granted an extension of time prior to that date, the appeal should be dismissed. A certificate of service was attached, certifying that a copy of the motion to dismiss was served upon counsel for appellants.

Rule 2-15 pertains to the time of filing briefs in appeals to the Supreme and Appellate Courts. Part of the rule reads as follows:

> “In all appeals from interlocutory orders, the appellant shall have 10 days after submission to file his brief. The appellee shall have 10 days after the filing of the appellant’s brief within which to file his brief. The appellant shall have 5 days after the filing of appellee’s brief in which to file his reply brief.”

It is apparent from appellants’ motion for extension of time to file their brief that this is an appeal from an interlocutory decree of which the Appellate Court has jurisdiction, and that their brief had not been filed within the 10-day period after submission. This being the case, appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained. *Union 403, Bartenders’ Union*v. *Demetrakopoulos*(1939), 215 Ind. 452, 19 N. E. 2d 466.

Appeal dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 159 N. E. 2d 854.
In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-13-00408-CR 

________________

ERNEST JOE BILNOSKI, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 221st District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-07-07790 CR

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Ernest Joe Bilnoski guilty of arson as a habitual 

felony offender and assessed punishment at forty-five years of imprisonment.

Bilnoski’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional 

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1978). 

Bilnoski filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has 
held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se 

responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) “that the appeal is wholly 

frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds 

no reversible error”; or (2) “that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the 

cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.”

Id.

We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s 

conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it 

unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

________________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN 

 Chief Justice

Submitted on August 22, 2014

Opinion Delivered September 17, 2014

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

 1

Bilnoski may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
# News

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

# Air Force follows revised DoD transgender policies

              - Published  May 13, 2021
              -                             By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs                                                     

**ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --  **
In March 2021, the Defense Department recognized transgender and gender non-conforming people and their continued struggle for equality, security and dignity.LGBTIQ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning individuals.The revised policies in these instructions essentially restore the DoD's original 2016 policies regarding transgender service. Specifically, they prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or an individual's identification as transgender. They also provide a means to access into the military in one's self-identified gender, provided all appropriate military standards are met.“Diverse backgrounds, beliefs and experiences make us a stronger workforce. We want to make sure our culture is inclusive, enabling all Airmen and Guardians to serve their country and contribute to our mission,” said Acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs **John Fedrigo**.The Department of the Air Force guidance provides details on how the Department will comply with the DoD Instructions, such as the exception to policy processes. It describes how commanders consult and work with military healthcare providers to support transgender members while balancing the needs of their mission. It also provides a path for those in service for medical treatment, gender transition and recognition in one's self-identified gender. The policy also seeks to protect the privacy of all service members and to treat them with dignity and respect at all times.In January, President **Joe Biden** issued two executive orders that impacted DoD transgender individuals: Executive Order 1398, "Preventing And Combating Discrimination On The Basis Of Gender Identity Or Sexual Orientation," and EO 14004, "Enabling All Qualified Americans To Serve Their Country In Uniform."For more information, the updated transgender policy memorandum is located **here**.

AFWNUSAFAFAir ForceTransgender PolicyrevisionLGBTIQdiversityinclusionguidanceequalitysecuritydignity
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23242]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees 
From the Grand Junction Operations Office, Grand Junction, CO, To Be 
Included in the Special Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: HHS gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision 
to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from the Grand 
Junction Operations Office, Grand Junction, Colorado, to be included in 
the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed 
definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as 
warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:
    Facility: Grand Junction Operations Office.
    Location: Grand Junction, Colorado.
    Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All laborers, labor supervisors, 
painters, grounds personnel, and Fire Chief.
    Period of Employment: January 1, 1943 through July 31, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Interim Director, 
Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, 
Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can 
also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6420272537242720274a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="692d2a283a292a2d2a472e263f">[email protected]</span></a>.

John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-23242 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604
October 14, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD , Chief Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 15

- 3608

MICHAEL G. GAMBOA , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v
. JEFFREY KRUEGER , Respondent

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois

.
No

. 1:14

- cv - 01373

- JES
James E. Shadid , Chief Judge

.
O R D E R On consideration of the Petition For Rehearing, filed by Petitioner

- Appellant on October 3 2016, all members of the original panel have voted to DENY the Petition For Rehearing.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition For Rehearing is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the order issued in the above

- entitled case on September 7, 2016, is hereby amended as follows: On page 2, in the third line from the bottom of the first paragraph , the text “again raised the § 924(c)(1) sentencing issue (among 47 grounds of relief) ” is replaced with “raised 47 grounds of relief”. The full sentence reads “The following year Gamboa raised 47 grounds of relief in an unsuccessful motion to vacate his senten ce under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.No. 15

- 3608 Page 2

On page 2, seventh line from the top of the third paragraph, the text

“

— and in fact was raised

— “ is deleted.
[No. 24038-6-II.

Division Two.

April 14, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Daunell Curtis Bird, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 96-1-00512-8, Waldo F. Stone, J. Pro Tern., entered December 14, 1998. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Hunt, A.C.J., and Bridgewater, J.