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

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

# Senior leader announcement: Week of May 27

              - Published  May 27, 2021
              - Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs

**ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --  **
Acting Secretary of the Air Force John P. Roth announces the following: 

**General officer assignments:**Maj. Gen. John J. NicholsFrom: Deputy Director, Nuclear Operations, J-3, United States Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, NebraskaTo: Director, Global Power, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Technology and Logistics, the Pentagon, Arlington, VirginaBrig. Gen. (S) Glenn T. HarrisFrom: Executive Advisor to the Commander, United States Strategic Command, Offutt AFB, NebraskaTO: Deputy Director, Nuclear Operations, J-3, United States Strategic Command, Offutt AFB, Nebraska

Maj. Gen. (S) Thomas E. KunkelFrom: Deputy Director, Operations Team-5, National Joint Operations and Intelligence Center, J-3, Joint Staff, the Pentagon, Arlington, VirginiaTo: Commander, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Airborne Early Warning and Command Force, Geilenkirchen, Germany

**Senior leader assignments:**Mr. Christopher M. WilcoxFrom: Technical Director, Army Evaluation Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MarylandTo: Deputy Director, Test and Evaluation, Headquarters United States Air Force, the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia

Ms. Venice M. GoodwineFrom: Chief Information Security Officer, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.To: Director, Enterprise Information Technology, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, the Pentagon, Arlington, VirginiaMr. Michael W. JohanekFrom: Director, Intelligence, Headquarters Air Force Global Strike Command, Barksdale AFB, LouisianaTo: Director, Operational Analysis, Deputy Chief of Staff, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Cyber Effects, Headquarters United States Air Force, the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia

DAFUSAFSenior LeadersGeneral OfficersAir Force
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

RE: Docket Number 2021 - CA -1156 

## Rusten May, Bryan Boudreaux,John D. Lewis, III, Eric Jackson and Albert J. Walker Versus - - 

### Lane Carson, in His Capacity as Secretary ofthe Louisiana Department of Veterans Affairs, and the State of Louisiana through the Department ofVeterans Affairs through its State Director ofVeterans Affairs, Bill Dixon 19th Judicial District Court Case #: 624049 East Baton Rouge Parish



## On Application for Rehearing filed on 08/14/2022 byJohn Lewis, III and Bryan Boudreaux Rehearing 

# b V') '; 

## F— - Z)

nnro 

# AUG 16 2022 

# 11
#### Charles Conway v. John W. Merrifield.

(No. 1115, Op. Book No. *2,*p. 247.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

March 3, 1881.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1025. *Proceedings before justice of the peace to be construed with liberality and indulgence.*Great liberality and indulgence are extended to the proceedings of justices of the peace, who are supposed not to be skilled in the forms of judicial proceedings observed in courts of record. If their proceedings are intelligible, and attain the ends of substantial justice, they are generally sustained. [Clay v. Clay, *7*Tex. 250.] In this case, the proceedings, which were by distress warrant, were held to be intelligible, and had attained the ends of justice, and, there being no error, the judgment was affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### W. Morrison v. Isaac Jaliorick *&*Co.

(No. 556, Tex. L. J., vol. 2, p. 571.)

Appeal from Galveston County.

March 5, 1879.

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 735. *'Jurisdiction; plea of personal privilege to be sued in county of residence.*Where a plea of personal privilege to be sued in the county of defendant’s residence is good in form and substance, it is error for the court to refuse evidence to be introduced in support thereof. [Pas. Dig. art.-1423; Acts 15th Leg. p. 157, sec. 8; p. 159, sec. 12.]

Reversed and remanded.
[No. 24318-1-II.

Division Two.

May 26, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Clifford E. Dailey, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Lewis County, No. 98-1-00517-8, David R. Draper, J., entered December 11, 1998. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Hunt, A.C.J., and Houghton, J.
#### T. K. Ferguson v. Maggie Luce.

(No. 484, Op. Book No. 2, p. 28.)

Appeal from Kaufman County.

December 18, 1878.

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 537. *Deposition where party taking reads part of; adverse party may read balance, when, though he did not file cross-interrogatories.*The plaintiff read a portion of the deposition of the witness Redfield, but when defendant proposed to read the other portion, relating to the same subject, which plaintiff had declined to read, plaintiff objected, because defendant had not crossed the interrogatories, and therefore had no interest in the deposition, and was not entitled to read it. This objection was sustained by the court. In this the court erred, the defendant being entitled to have the whole on the same subject read after plaintiff had read a portion of the deposition.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Albert Moyer, respondent, *v.*Flora H. Moyer, appellant.

[Argued March 27th, 1911.

Decided June 19th, 1911.]

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Howell.

*Mr. Samuel Kalisch, Jr.,*for the respondent.

*Messrs. Pitney, Hardin & Skinner,*for the appellant.

Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from is affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Howell.

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Congdon, Sullivan — 12.

*For reversal*— None.
Exhibit 23.1  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-180052 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 29, 2012, relating to the combined financial statements of certain entities as described in Note 1 to the combined financial statements (the RPI Businesses) (for which the report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs regarding the RPI Businesses combined financial statements with assets, liabilities, and a capital structure having carrying values not comparable with prior periods and the RPI Businesses inclusion of allocations of certain operating expenses from General Growth Properties, Inc.) and the related combined financial statement schedule, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the RPI Businesses for the year ended December 31, 2011.  /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP  Chicago, Illinois March 29, 2012
#### W. S. *&*J. L. Lenoir v. Dibrell & Hodges.

(No. 1302, Op. Book No. 2, p. 371.)

Error from Falls County.

June 8, 1881.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1110. *Sale of personal property; when complete; contract.*The rule is well settled that, so long as there remains anything to be done with respect to the sale, it is incomplete. And also that the minds of the parties must meet and concur before there is a contract. This case was a trial of the right of property to a boiler which appellees had had levied upon as the property of one Gardner, and which the appellants claimed as their property. The evidence showed that appellants had agreed to sell Gardner the boiler for $250, of which amount $50 was to be paid in advance. Gardner never agreed to the terms of sale, and never paid the advance purchase money, but had the boiler in his possession and use under an arrangement with appellants, and had some repairs put upon it, for which he paid. *Held,*that there had been no sale of the boiler by appellants, to Gardner; that by the contract of sale proposed, the payment of the $50 in advance would be required to complete the sale. The judgment of the court below, being against the claimants, was

Reversed and remanded.
#### T. & P. R. R. Co. v. M. M. Miller.

(No. 2263, R. Book No. *4,*p. 228.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

April 29, 1882.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 262. *Justices’ courts; pleadings in.*Pleadings in justices’ courts are oral, except as otherwise specially provided. [Eev. Stats, art. 1513.] In suit against a railroad company in a justice’s court, it is not required that plaintiff should allege, as is required in district and county courts in such suits, that defendant “was a corporation duly incorporated.” [Rev. Stats, art. 1190; Life Insur. Co. v. Davidge, 51 Tex. 244.]

§ 263. *Suit for stock killed; burden of proof; fences.*Before the adoption of the statute on the subject of fencing a railroad track [Eev. Stats, art. 4245], the burden of proof to show negligence was in all cases upon the plaintiff. [Bethje v. R. R. Co. 26 Tex. 604.] Now, it is in the power of the railroad to defeat the claim for damages, except such as arise from want of ordinary care, by simply showing that the road was fenced; and whenever the plaintiff shows that his stock has been injured, the road is *ipso facto*liable for want of ordinary care, and the burden of proving that the track was fenced would be upon the railroad.

Affirmed.
#### D. A. W. Burris v. Lambeth & Harris.

(No. 361, Op. Book No. 1, p. 239.)

Appeal from Lamar County.

April 30, 1877.

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 25. *Trial before judge without jury.*Where a jury is waived and the cause submitted to the judge, the judgment will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by or contrary to the evidence. It will not be reversed if there is any evidence to support it. [13 Tex. 337; Sullivan v. Richardson, 25 Ga. 54; Strong v. Blake, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 227.]

Affirmed.
KINGS ROAD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
                             A Delaware corporation
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kings Road Entertainment,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Geraldine Blecker, Chief Executive Officer, and I, H. Martin
DeFrank, President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 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; and

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

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authentication, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed from within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Kings Road
Entertainment, Inc., and will be retained by Kings Road Entertainment, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





                                               /s/ Geraldine Blecker
Dated:  July 15, 2004                          _________________________________
                                               By:  Geraldine Blecker
                                               Its:  Chief Executive Officer



                                               /s/ H. Martin DeFrank
Dated:  July 15, 2004                          _________________________________
                                               By:  H. Martin DeFrank
                                               Its:  Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS AFFINITO.

February 6, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMANDO v. MUNOZ,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 V.

JAMES TILTON; JEANNE S.

WOODFORD; SUZAN HUBBARD,

Warden; N. GRANNIS; B. HEDRICK; W.

J. HILL; BEN CURRY; ANTHONY P.

KANE,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-16203

D.C. No. 5:07-cv-03846-EJD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 8, 2014** 

San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

FILED

OCT 14 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Armando Munoz appeals the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc to -cc5. We affirm the district court’s

dismissal.

I 

The district court correctly determined that Munoz’s lawsuit is now moot. 

In September 2009, Munoz was transferred away from the Correctional Training

Facility in Soledad, California to another prison. Since transferring, he has

received numerous religious CDs and admits that all of his religious needs are

being met. The district court was correct in determining that his claims for

injunctive and declaratory relief are moot. See Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061,

1063–64 (9th Cir. 2012).

II

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Munoz leave to

amend his complaint. The court had already given Munoz one opportunity to

amend his complaint with the assistance of counsel and further amendment would

likely have been futile. See U.S. Mortg., Inc. v. Saxton, 494 F.3d 833, 843 n.11

(9th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology

Inc., 584 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1956

JOHN D. MCCOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-96-125-B) Submitted: April 7, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Vernon M. Williams, WOLFE & FARMER, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Chief Counsel, Region III, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Rafael Melendez, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, John F. Cochran, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant John D. McCoy appeals from district court orders that adopted the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, affirmed an ALJ’s decision denying him disability benefits, and denied reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. See Hays v. Sullivan , 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we affirm the orders based upon the reasoning of the district court. McCoy v. Apfel , No. CA-96-125-B (W.D. Va. May 13 & 29, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 32****CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     The undersigned officers, Wayne M. Fortun, Chief Executive Officer of Hutchinson TechnologyIncorporated, a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”), and John A. Ingleman, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:     (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended December 24, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Date: January 29, 2007 /s/ Wayne M. Fortun   Wayne M. Fortun   Chief Executive Officer      Date:  January 29, 2007 /s/ John A. Ingleman   John A. Ingleman   Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 8.1**

 

List of subsidiaries of Grupo Supervielle S.A.

 

| **Subsidiary**                                              | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of   incorporation** | ** ** | **Name under which the   subsidiary does business**      |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Banco Supervielle S.A.                                      |       | Argentina                                |       | Supervielle                                                                       |
| Cordial Compañía Financiera S.A.                  |       | Argentina                                |       | Walmart Servicios Financieros;   Servicios Financieros Hipertehuelche;   Pesos Ya |
| Tarjeta Automática S.A.                                |       | Argentina                                |       | Carta Automática;   Pesos Ya                                                 |
| Supervielle Seguros S.A.                                    |       | Argentina                                |       | Supervielle Seguros                                                               |
| Supervielle Asset Management Sociedad Gerente de FCI   S.A. |       | Argentina                                |       | Supervielle Asset Management                                                      |
| Espacio Cordial de Servicios S.A.                           |       | Argentina                                |       | Cordial                                                                           |
| Sofital S.A.F. e I.I.                                       |       | Argentina                                |       | N/A                                                                               |

 

----
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Leaders Talk Global Security ChallengesPublished Sept. 22, 2023
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Vernon Young
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                In this week’s look around the Air Force, leaders talk about how the department is changing in light of great power competition in their keynote speeches at the Air and Space Forces Association’s Air, Space and Cyber Conference at National Harbor, Maryland. (Hosted by Senior Airman Saomy Sabournin)



02:10


**Watch on DVIDS | Watch on YouTube**
For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.Featured Video 



AF 



Air Force 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



AFTV Related Links
        Saltzman highlights new Space Force mission statement and building a purpose-built service for great power competition
            
            Brown provides update on Air Force’s effort to ‘accelerate change’ to meet global security challenges
            
            Kendall outlines China threat in stark detail, offers blueprint for effective response
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0228. IN THE INTEREST OF A. D., A CHILD.

AppellantsJesse and CourtenayBoland are A. D.’sfoster parents. They appeal

from the juvenile court’s order terminating the parental rights of A. D.’s biological

parents and awarding permanent custody of A. D. to the Department of Family and

Children Services (“DFCS”) to be placed for adoption with a new foster family.

Appellants challenge various aspects of the juvenile court’s ruling with respect to

A. D.’s permanent disposition. However, Appellants lack standing and cannot

maintain this appeal.

It is well settled that “only a party to the case can appeal from a judgment, or

one who has sought to become a party as by way of intervention and has been denied

the right to do so.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ford v. Reddick, 319 Ga. App.

482, 482-483 (1) (735 SE2d 809) (2012). See also OCGA § 15-11-19 (a). Here, there

is no indication in the record that Appellants were parties to the case below or that

Appellants moved to intervene in the case. 

Nor do Appellants have standing to appeal on the basis that they are

“aggrieved” by the challenged ruling. See Caruthers v. Chan, 354 Ga. App. 826, 827

(1) (841 SE2d 475) (2020) (non-party had standing to challenge judgment because

she was “directly aggrieved by the decision”); In the Interest of J.R.P., 287 Ga. App.

621, 622 (1) (652 SE2d 206) (2007) (“[A] person may only challenge a ruling which

has adversely affected his or her own rights.”) (citations and punctuation omitted).

Appellants were not awarded legal custody or guardianship of A. D., and A. D.’s

placement with Appellants for foster care did not operate to transfer custody from

DFCS to Appellants. See Dept. of Human Servs. v. Duncan, 351 Ga App. 332, 338

June 02, 2022
(831 SE2d 4) (2019) (Department of Human Servicesretains legal custodyof children

it places in foster homes). Moreover, asfoster parents, Appellants do not have a right

either to custody of or to adopt A. D. See Owen v. Watts, 303 Ga. App. 867, 869 (2)

(695 SE2d 62) (2010) (“Georgia law provides no right for foster parents to adopt.”).

Accordingly, Appellantslack standing to maintain this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

06/02/2022
#### William Robbin v. Lewis & Hurst.

(No. 518, Op. Book No. 1, p. 681.)

Appeal from Atascosa County.

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 346. *Judgment corcim non judice.*In this case the court adjourned over the trial from the civil term of the *148county court until after the criminal term of said court had closed, and then took it up and disposed of it by trial. *Held,*that a judgment rendered under such circumstances is a nullity, it being *coram non judice.*[Cassiday v. State, 4 Ct. App. 96.]

June 22, 1878.

Reversed and remanded.