alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Winslow & Morris *v.*Kierski.

Since the code of procedure, there is no provision nor practice requiring bills of particulars to be given.

Where the marine court rendered judgment against the plaintiff for not furnishing such a bill, after he had exhibited his complaint, for services as attorney in two specified suits since the code ; the judgment was reversed.

The plaintiff may be compelled to amend an insufficient complaint, before requiring the defendant to answer.

January 17;

January 27, 1849.

Appeal from the marine court, where Winslow & Morris sued Kierski for services as attorneys and counsellors. They filed their complaint in writing, stating among other things, their retainer by the defendant K. in October, 1848, to prosecute *305two suits in his behalf in the supreme court, specifying the same ; that they prosecuted the same until K. settled them with the parties by a compromise ; and that the services of W. &. M. in those suits were worth $84, on account of which they had been paid $34. Also, that W. & M. had paid for K., $3 34, for serving the complaint in one of those suits. On the complaint being filed in the marine court, the defendant demanded a bill of particulars of the items of W. & M.’s demand; and the court directed such bill to be given. The plaintiffs, W. & M., declined to furnish a bill of particulars, whereupon the defendant refused to answer the complaint. W. & M. then demanded judgment for want of an answer, which the court refused to grant; and on the contrary, entered a judgment *non pros*against W. & M., for omitting to furnish a bill of particulars.

*Winslow & Morris,*appellants in person.

*Wightman & Clark,*for the respondents.

*By*the Court. Oakley, Ch. J.

Since the code of procedure took effect, there is no longer any provision or practice requiring bills of particulars to be given. The 135th section of the code was not applicable to the complaint below. There was no allegation, nor any reasonable inference, that the plaintiff’s demand consisted of more than twenty items.

If the complaint was insufficient, the plaintiffs might have been compelled to amend it, before the defendant could have been required to answer. But no application of that kind was made to the court below. It is clear, the court was not authorized to give judgment against the plaintiff because of his omission to furnish the particulars on the demand made.

The plaintiffs claimed against their client for services as attorneys in two specified suits. The code gave a fixed compensation for such services, for each stage of the respective suits. There could have been no surprise or want of information on the part of the defendant, as to the extent and character of the claim. Whether the claim were correct or not, would depend *306upon the evidence ; and he was at liberty to question both the retainer and the amount.

Judgment reversed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          SENATE BILL REFERRED

  A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the 
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

       S. 510. An act to extend the authorization for certain 
     programs under the Native American Programs Act of 1974, and 
     for other purposes; to the Committee on Economic and 
     Educational Opportunities.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1998 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                         624,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,570,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    231,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,000,000
<PP&E>                                       4,949,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,829,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,535,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,096,000
<BONDS>                                        577,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     14,000
<COMMON>                                       164,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,305,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,535,000
<SALES>                                     31,343,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,343,000
<CGS>                                       27,175,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,175,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             121,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,324,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    60,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,264,000
<DISCONTINUED>                               (200,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,064,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 31st TES begins F-35 Initial Operational Test and EvaluationPublished Dec. 11, 2018
                        
                        By Maj. Ashley Conner
                        
                        
                        53rd Wing Public Affairs
                **EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) --**
                The 31st Test and Evaluation Squadron kicked off the Defense Department’s F-35 Lightning II Initial Operational Test and Evaluation with a large force employment sortie from Edwards AFB, California, Dec. 5.
“The sorties consisted of seven F-35s performing both offensive counter air, suppression of enemy air defenses and air attack operations. This marks an important milestone for the F-35 program,” said Lt. Col. Nicholas Ihde, 31st TES commander.  
During the IOT&E phase, the 31st TES F-35 pilots will fly more than 30 missions designed to fully evaluate the complete air system as well as identify technical and operational areas for improvement.
“These unique flights place the aircraft in realistic combat conditions with our joint and coalition partners to determine the operational effectiveness and suitability for the warfighter,” Ihde said.  
The 31st TES has 10 F-35 pilots, 145 maintainer’s and 11 engineers to bring the F-35 program through this phase. If they discover an issue they will work with the director of operational test and evaluation, Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office to address it before going out to the fleet.
“As the conduit between developmental test flights and combat missions it is our duty to ensure this aircraft fulfills the need of the warfighter, (major command), and the American public," Ihde said. "We must guarantee that we hand the Combat Air Force a product that has been tested with rigor and is ironed out. An advantage the 31st TES possesses is pilot experience.  Most of the pilots have over 1,500 flight hours in various fighter aircraft and previous operational test backgrounds lending vast experiences fall back on and reference in order to make this jet the best it can be.”  
The completion of F-35 IOT&E will aid the Navy in an initial operating capability decision and will help inform full rate production for the DoD in the future.F-35 



Air Force 



maintainer 



Air Combat Command 



Lightning II 



pilot 



AF 



Edwards AFB 



evaluation 



test 



Engineer 



Air Force Base 



operational 



31st Test and Evaluation Squadron 



initial 



31st TES 



Edwards Air Force Base 



F-35 Initial Operational Test and Evaluation 



F-35A Lightning II 



#IOT&E 



Combat Air Force 



U.S. Air Force 



U.S. Navy 



testing 



#readytofight 



ACC
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-31134 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CLARENCE A. NUGENT, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-10005-03

- - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1996 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Clarence A. Nugent appeals his guilty-plea conviction forusing and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drugtrafficking offense. Nugent argues that in light of the intervening change to the law defining an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), his guilty plea was unknowing based on the factual basis no longer supporting his plea. The portion of the factual basis which was undisputed is sufficient to support criminalNo. 95-31134 -2- liability under § 924(c)(1). See Bailey v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 501, 508 (1995). Nugent argues that Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) was violated by the district court failing to explain adequately the mandatory nature of the five-year term of imprisonment and the court failing to determine whether Nugent understood the mandatory sentence. Our review of the record confirms that the court's explanation of the penalties was adequate under Rule 11 and that any error by the court by its failure to inquire whether Nugent understood was harmless. See United States v. Johnson , 1 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2765 

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to prevent duplicative 

regulation of advisers of small business investment companies. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2014 

Mr. KIRK (for himself and Mr. MANCHIN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to prevent 

duplicative regulation of advisers of small business investment companies. 

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 ‘‘SBIC Advisers Relief 

5 Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADVISERS OF SBICS AND VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS. 

7 Section 203(l) of the Investment Advisers Act of 

8 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b–3(l)) is amended— 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2765 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘No investment adviser’’ and in2 serting the following: 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No investment adviser’’; 

4 and 

5 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(2) ADVISERS OF SBICS.—For purposes of this 

7 subsection, a venture capital fund includes an entity 

8 described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of sub9 section (b)(7) (other than an entity that has elected 

10 to be regulated or is regulated as a business develop11 ment company pursuant to section 54 of the Invest12 ment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–53)).’’. 

13 SEC. 3. ADVISERS OF SBICS AND PRIVATE FUNDS. 

14 Section 203(m) of the Investment Advisers Act of 

15 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b–3(m)) is amended by adding at the 

16 end the following: 

17 ‘‘(3) ADVISERS OF SBICS.—For purposes of this 

18 subsection, the assets under management of a pri19 vate fund that is an entity described in subpara20 graph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (b)(7) (other 

21 than an entity that has elected to be regulated or is 

22 regulated as a business development company pursu23 ant to section 54 of the Investment Company Act of 

24 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–53)) shall be excluded from 

25 the limit set forth in paragraph (1).’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2765 IS

1 SEC. 4. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAW. 

2 Section 203A(b)(1) of the Investment Advisers Act 

3 of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b–3a(b)(1)) is amended— 

4 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

5 the end; 

6 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period 

7 at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

8 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(C) that is not registered under section 

10 203 because that person is exempt from reg11 istration as provided in subsection (b)(7) of 

12 such section, or is a supervised person of such 

13 person.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 
 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 this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A, Amendment No. 2 for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 of China Health Resource, Inc., f/k/a Voice
Diary Inc. (“CHRI”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhou, Yi, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on 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:
March 5, 2009
 
 
 
 /s/ Zhou,
Yi
 Zhou,
Yi
 Chief
Financial Officer
  
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
CHRI and will be retained by CHRI and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 4,
2011 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2011-2 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the
transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by General Motors Financial Company, Inc. (f/k/a AmeriCredit Corp.), AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith.
The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive
Vice President, Accounting Corporate Controller of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     |  |                                 |  |  |  |                      
|------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. |  |                                 |  | 
|                                     |  |                                 | 
|By:                                  |  | /s/ Connie Coffey               |  |  |  | Dated: March 26, 2013
|                                     |  | Connie Coffey                   |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Executive Vice President,       |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Accounting Corporate Controller |  |  |  |
News United States Air Force
 Red Flag 21-2 creates agile, multi-domain problem-solversPublished March 28, 2021
                        
                        By  Tech. Sgt. Alexandre Montes
                        
                        
                        Nellis Air Force Base Public Affairs
                **NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFNS) --**
                “Nested within the **U.S. Air Force Warfare Center** and **57th Wing** priorities, Red Flag is aligned with our **National Defense Strategy**,” said Col. William Reese, 414th Combat Training Squadron commander. “Using complex mission scenarios against a powerful and unrestricted aggressor team, participants get the best high-end training available.”
This iteration focused on unleashing the **F-16 Fighting Falcon**, more known to participants as the ‘Red Team’ or aggressors, to expand their horizons into multi-domain operations. Teams functioned side-by-side in planning, staging and execution throughout the exercise to learn how to work together seamlessly.
“They also gained valuable relationships, so when they meet again in deployed locations, they already have familiarity with key mission leaders and can solve hard problems in accordance with the joint force commander’s guidance and intent," Reese added.
These tactics mimicked great power competition problem sets, preparing joint and allied partners for the future of aerial combat. Though aerial adversary tactics continue to be a key focus in Red Flag scenarios, space and cyberspace threats are interwoven to ensure participants are prepared to react to and overcome the full array of adversary impediments to mission success.
“In order to ensure we challenge our participants even further, we concealed our targets and forced scenarios, driving Red Flag participants to think critically during the fight, including potentially re-attacking targets that were struck but desired weapons effects were not met,” Reese said.
These concepts of warfighting will remain constant throughout training Department of Defense and NATO partners, and allow each partner component to pool their resources and complement their counterparts while deployed.
“Red Flag 21-2 tested our ability to win against a near-peer threat while fighting alongside our joint and coalition partners,” said Col. Robert T. Raymond, 20th Operations Group commander and RF 21-2 Air Expeditionary Wing commander. “Our Airmen executed with the creativity, interoperability and discipline we need to win tomorrow’s wars. I couldn’t be more proud of the team, including our maintainers on the line who gave us the jets we needed every day for a successful exercise.”LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



red flag 



nellis afb 



Red Flag 21-2 



exercise 



57TH WING 



BDS 



414th CTS 



aggressors 



multi domain 



partnerships 



joint 



Aircraft 



One Air Force 



training 



readiness F-16 



20th OG
News United States Air Force
 Hurricane Hunters hunt first winter storm of the seasonPublished Dec. 17, 2020
                        
                        By Senior Airman Kristen Pittman
                        
                        
                        403rd Wing Public Affairs
                **KEESLER AIR FORCE BASE, Miss. (AFNS) --**
                Hurricane season might be over, but that does not mean the **53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron** “Hurricane Hunters” are through providing pertinent weather reconnaissance services to those potentially impacted by severe weather.As of Nov. 1, the winter storm season began, and the 53rd WRS took off for their first tasking of the season Dec. 15.According to Lt. Col. Kaitlyn Woods, 53rd WRS chief aerial weather reconnaissance officer, the purpose of flying winter storms is very similar to flying tropical disturbances: collect data over the water where there are limited resources so the data can be injected into weather models in order to get a better forecast.Unlike in tropical systems where the flights go right into the storm at altitudes ranging from 500-10,000 feet, the aircrews navigate their **WC-130J Super Hercules** at approximately 30,000 feet.“For winter storms we don’t fly through the system; we fly in front of the system,” Woods said. “This particular one we are doing these next two days is a storm they believe is going to generate off the Gulf Stream off the East Coast, so we want to get ahead of the system to collect what the atmosphere currently looks like and how it will affect the incoming system.”Additionally, fixes during hurricane season are requested by the National Hurricane Center and coordinated through the Chief, Aerial Reconnaissance Coordination All Hurricanes team, both in Miami; but for winter storms, the National Centers for Environmental Prediction in College Park, Maryland, a subsection of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, work with CARCAH to schedule taskings.During the missions, dropsondes are released to collect atmospheric data such as dew point, barometric pressure, wind speed and direction to assist with forecasts. Woods said the data they collect is transmitted to CARCAH who then disseminates it to the public where it is ingested into the NOAA models.“These major winter-weather systems often affect heavily populated areas such as New England, so the data we collect better helps with forecasting the max amount of wind speed, rainfall and/or snowfall, so those people can be better prepared,” Woods said.AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



AFRC 



U.S. Air Force Reserve 



53rd WRS 



hurricane hunters 



403rd Wing 



Winter Storm 



53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron 



WC-130J Super Hercules
EXHIBIT 99.2



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 Quarterly Report of IVAX Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Thomas E. Beier, Senior Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial
Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    THOMAS E. BEIERThomas E. BeierSenior Vice President  Finance andChief Financial OfficerMay 14, 2003