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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

    MISSISSIPPI AIR NATIONAL GUARD'S 186TH REFUELING GROUP RECEIVES 
                       HIGHEST INSPECTION RATING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues the 
news that the Air National Guard's 186th Air Refueling Group in 
Meridian, MS, received an ``outstanding'' rating after completing an 
operational readiness inspection conducted by the Air Mobility Command 
[AMC].
  This is the first time in the history of the Air Mobility Command 
that any unit has been given an ``outstanding'' rating, which was 
announced on May 11 by Lt. Gen. Malcolm Armstrong, commander of AMC's 
21st Air Force.
  The unit was required to deploy more than half of its 900 members for 
the week-long inspection At Fort Hood, Texas, along with nine KC-135 
tanker aircraft. They lived and worked in a wartime scenario during the 
inspection. While deployed, the unit was subject to simulated 
conventional and chemical attack, terrorist activity and hostile 
threats while continuing to perform its mission of air-to-air refueling 
of military aircraft. The AMC inspection team, composed of active duty 
members based at Air Mobility Command headquarters, Scott Air Force 
Base, Illinois, tested the unit's capability under the same criteria 
used for inspecting active Air Force units. the exercises ran 24 hours 
a day while the unit was deployed.
  Col. Frederick Feinstein, air commander of the 186th, said, ``This 
was undoubtedly the finest display of professionalism and dedication 
that I have seen from any unit in almost 40 years of military service. 
Every Member of the unit had a job to do in this effort and each of 
them performed flawlessly.''
  I agree with Colonel Feinstein. This rating means the 186th was 
exceptional in all areas of inspection. That is almost unprecedented 
for any unit, active duty, National Guard or Reserve. It is a credit to 
the men and women who make up this unit. Their training and teamwork 
came together to put the 186th at the top of the class.

                          ____________________
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23490]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Public Meeting, Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains 
National Monument Advisory Committee; California

AGENCIES: Bureau of Land Management, Interior; and Forest Service, 
USDA.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains 
National Monument Act of 2000 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 
1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest 
Service) Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument 
Advisory Committee (MAC) will meet as indicated below.

DATES: September 20, 2010. The meeting will start at 3 p.m. and end at 
6 p.m. with the public comment period beginning at 4 p.m. The meeting 
will be held at the County of Riverside Permit Assistance Center, 
Second Floor Conference Room, 38686 El Cerrito Road, Palm Desert, 
California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Foote, Monument Manager, Santa 
Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, 1201 Bird Center 
Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262, or telephone (760) 833-7136.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MAC advises the Secretary of the 
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, through the BLM and Forest 
Service, with respect to the preparation and implementation of a 
management plan for the National Monument. The meeting will focus on a 
variety of planning and management issues associated with the National 
Monument. All MAC meetings are open to the public. The public may 
present written comments to the MAC in advance of or at the meeting. 
Each formal MAC meeting will also have time allocated for receiving 
public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment 
and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be 
limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, 
such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should contact the Monument Manager as provided above.

     Dated: August 24, 2010.
John R. Kalish,
Field Manager, Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office, California Desert 
District, Bureau of Land Management.

     Dated: August 24, 2010.
Laurie Rosenthal,
District Ranger, San Jacinto Ranger District, San Bernardino National 
Forest, Forest Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-23490 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Quintiles Transnational Corp. and Subsidiaries
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 Quintiles Transnational Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis
B. Gillings, Executive Chairman and 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, to my knowledge, 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/ Dennis B. GillingsDennis B. GillingsExecutive Chairman and
Chief Executive OfficerNovember 12, 2004Date
 This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of
any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
documents authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
#### The People v. Robert Riley.

*Liquor traffic*— Sale *to minor*— Charge *to jury.*

Where in a prosecution for 'selling liquor to a minor the undisputed and only evidence showed such sale in the respondent’s presence, and in such a manner as to make his ignorance of it impossible, unless he lacked some of his senses, or was willfully ignorant, an instruction to the jury that such ignorance would make no difference, and that he would be liable at all events, could have no bearing or effect, there being no pretense of such ignorance.

Exceptions from Berrien. (O’Hara, J.)

Argued June 27, 1888.

Decided July 11, 1888.

Respondent was convicted of selling liquor to a minor.

Conviction affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*G. B. é A. II. Potter,*for respondent.

*Moses Taggart,*Attorney General, and *George W. Bridgman,*Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Campbell, J.

Respondent was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor to Sidney Phillips, a minor. The only testimony on either side bearing upon the merits was that of Phillips, who swore he was 17 years old, and that he drank and gambled in Riley’s saloon, when Riley was present, and that liquor was served him by the barkeeper.

Hpon this undisputed testimony, which the jury believed and had no reason for disbelieving, the only two issues of fact were whether it was Riley’s saloon, and -whether the liquor was sold in the manner witness said it was.

But counsel propounded, and the judge considered, a possible ignorance of Riley concerning the sale of the *350liquor. The court charged that such ignorance would make no difference, and that he would be liable at all events.

This might make it necessary to consider the correctness of the charge upon the hypothesis of actual ignorance and moral innocence. But we do not think that question is before us for decision.

The only testimony concerning any sale showed it was in Riley’s presence, and that it was impossible he did not know it, unless he lacked some of his senses, or was willfully ignorant. If the jury believed Phillips concerning the sale, they could not disregard the details of it. It would be difficult to find a plainer case of undisputed facts. If it had been possible for the jury to have been misled by the range of discussion in the charge, it might be material; but all that part of it which referred to what might hold an ignorant party could have no bearing or effect where there was no pretense of ignorance. The testimony pointed all in one way.

The conviction was proper, and should be affirmed.

The- other Justices concurred.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Michael W. Perry, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. (“IndyMac Bancorp”), certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IndyMac Bancorp; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: October 28, 2004     /s/ Michael W. Perry Michael W. Perry *Chairman of the Board of Directors*
#### Isaac Williams & Co. v. A. Dennis & Co.

(No. 2048, Op. Book No. 2, p. 560.)

Appeal from Bell County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1233. *Appeal from justice's court; parties only are entitled to; notice of appeal; intervention; justice may grant new trials, etc.*It is only to the parties to the final judgment rendered by the justice of the peace that the right of appeal is extended. Williams & Oo. recovered a judgment against the Bell County Fair Association as garnishee. In that suit appellees were not parties. After the judgment was rendered, appellees made a motion to set it aside on the ground that they had filed an intervention in the suit, and had not been called when the case was tried. Their alleged intervention consisted of an affidavit and bond in accordance with the provisions of the statute for the trial of the right of property, clainiing a portion of the debt owing by the garnishee to one Miller, the debtor of appellants, and this affidavit and bond were filed, not in the garnishment suit, but in a suit *708entitled J. G. Miller v. The Bell County Fair Association. The justice of the'peace refused to consider appellees as parties to the suit of Williams & Co. v. The Bell County Fair Association, and rendered judgment for Williams & Co. Appellees, after the adjournment of the justice’s court, made a motion for a new trial, which was, in vacation, overruled, and they gave notice of appeal. In the county court appellants’ motion to dismiss the appeal was overruled and judgment rendered for appellees. *Held,*1. That appellees were not parties to the final judgment rendered by the justice of the peace in favor of appellants against the Bell County Fair Association, and had no right to appeal therefrom. Their claim affidavit and bond filed in another suit was not an intervention in this suit. The right to intervene in a suit is by leave of the court and upon notice to the parties. Here there was neither. Their motion for new trial did not make them parties to the suit. 2. The Be vised Statutes have changed the law with regard to appeals from.'justices’ courts. The notice of appeal, which is essential to give the county court jurisdiction, must be given in open court, *during the same term*at which the final judgment which is appealed from is rendered. The change of the law in this respect does not interfere with the power of the justice of the peace to set aside judgments by default, or dismissals, or grant new trials within ten days from the rendition of judgment. But the provision as to notice of appeal is imperative; it must be given during the same term in which the judgment was rendered. [B. S. 1039.] [Note. — This article of the Bevised Statutes was very materially amended by act ■ of April 13, 1883, and notice of appeal in the justice’s court is no longer required. [Acts 18th Leg. chap. XCI, p. 91.] Beversed, and the appeal to the county court dismissed.

December *7,*1881.
#### BOROUGH OF WEST CALDWELL v. LAMM ASSOCIATES.

March 27, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
News United States Air Force
 USAF, IAF senior leaders collaborate in Air Senior National Representatives forumPublished Aug. 10, 2023
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS)  --**
                U.S. and Israeli air force service members discussed areas of cooperative opportunities and postured for the future during this year’s iteration of the Air Senior National Representatives forum in Tel Aviv, Israel, July 30 to Aug. 3.The ASNR forum is a bilateral U.S. Air Force - Israel engagement that lays the foundation for the cooperation and interoperability of national airpower capability advancements. This was the ninth iteration of ASNR forum meetings with Israel.“If you invest in your team and you invest in the quality of the people on your team, you can create high performers with solid work and we're here to support the field. Together we’ve been able to identify combined strengths and set goals to mutually advance.”U.S. Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. David AllvinFourteen different working groups of Israeliair force and U.S. Air Force service members discussed focus areas and developed milestones for continued collaboration in operations, logistics, security and more.   The visit was hosted by Israeliair force Chief of Staff Brig. Gen. Eyal Grinboim as part of the ASNR meeting, which is held annually between the Israeli and American air forces. ANSR, established in 2015, aims to identify, promote, and reach areas of mutual interest and cooperation in the development of interoperable and integrated airpower. During the forum, leaders discussed bilateral operations, training, force generation and maintenance; identified obstacles that may impede integration; and identified opportunities to improve interoperable programs.American and Israeli flags adorn a conference table at the Air Senior National Representatives forum in Tel Aviv, Israel, Aug. 3, 2023. Senior Air Force leaders from both countries discussed areas of cooperative opportunities and postured for the future during this year’s iteration. (Courtesy photo)American and Israeli flags adorn a conference table at the Air Senior National Representatives forum in Tel Aviv, Israel, Aug. 3, 2023. Senior Air Force leaders from both countries discussed areas of cooperative opportunities and postured for the future during this year’s iteration. (Courtesy photo)
            
            
            Photo Details /
                Download Hi-Res

    










“Working together is critical to deepening our cooperation and strengthening our security relationship, it keeps our air forces informed of advantages, challenges, and potential risks to building effective airpower,” **Allvin** said. “Efforts through this year’s ASNR represent our long-term and enduring commitment to the future.”LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Air Senior National Representatives 



forum 



Israeli air force 



cooperative 



opportunities 



interoperability 



collaboration 



alliance 



partnership
EX-10.(b)






EXHIBIT 10 (b) 

RULE 30a-2(b) CERTIFICATION 
















In connection with this report on Form N-CSR for the registrant as furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to Section 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 applicable; and 

		
 
	
 

		
(2) 
	
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant. 











	
By: 
	
/s/ BRIAN T. ZINO 

	
 
	
Brian T. Zino 

	
 
	
Chief Executive Officer 

	
 
	
 

	
Date: 
	
December 2, 2003 

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 

	
By: 
	
/s/ LAWRENCE P. VOGEL 

	
 
	
Lawrence P. Vogel 

	
 
	
Chief Financial Officer 

	
 
	
 

	
Date: 
	
December 2, 2003
September 26, 1979.

422 A.2d 1171

#### Commonwealth v. Bennett, Appellant.

Submitted August 28, 1979.

John P. Dohanich, Public Defender, for appellant; John Lee Brown, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before VAN der VOORT, LARSEN and LAVELLE, JJ.*

*

 Justice Rolf Larsen of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and Judge John E. Lavelle of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, are sitting by designation.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
#### F. S. Weems et al. v. Miles & Rainer.

(No. 1871, Op. Book No. 2, p. 515.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1207. *Jurisdiction; non-resident of state having property in the stale.*Appellees sued appellant Weems upon a note,. alleging that he was a non-resident of this state, but had credits and effects in this state, and sued out a garnishment against appellant Hunt. Defendants pleaded in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court. Held, the allegation that Weems had property and moneys due him in this state, and the issuance and serv*689ice of the writ of garnishment, gave the court jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, and the plea in abatement was properly overruled. [Battle v. Carter, 44 Tex. 485; Wilson v. Zeigler, id. 657; Johnson v. Herbert, 45 Tex. 304.]

November 2, 1881.

§ 1208. *Garnishment; independent executor.*The garnishee in this case was executor under a will which gave control of the estate to him independently of the orders of the probate court. Such an executor may be sued, and execution may be issued against the property of the estate in his possession. The answer of the garnishee showed that Weems was entitled to a legacy of $2,000 out of the estate; that the estate in his hands was worth over $15,000, while the debts which had been proved against it amounted to something over $2,000. The case was tried in the court below about eighteen months after the probate of the will, and the garnishee did not assert or claim that the entire estate was necessary for the payment of debts. *Held:*Under the independent will, the executor held the property in trust for the legatees after the payment of the debts of the testator; and when the debts were paid,- the rights of the legatees to the remainder of the estate became absolute. According to the answer of the executor, *prima facie,*he had assets in his hands belonging to Weems, and if other debts had come to his knowledge before the trial, sufficient in amount to consume the estate, or the greater part of the same, the burden was upon him to show the fact. The judgment appealed from was against Weems, defendant, and Hunt, garnishee, for the full amount of plaintiff’s claim.

Affirmed.