alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Juneteenth: Celebrating freedom, commemorating Black historyPublished June 19, 2023
                        
                        By Senior Airman Jaliil Smith
                        
                        
                        Hill Air Force Base Special Observance Council
                **HILL AIR FORCE BASE, Utah (AFNS) --**
                Juneteenth, also known as Emancipation Day, is **celebrated** annually on June 19 to commemorate the emancipation of enslaved African Americans in the United States.
The **Emancipation Proclamation**, issued by President Abraham Lincoln on Jan. 1, 1863, declared freedom for enslaved people in Confederate states. However, it took over two years for the news to reach enslaved African Americans in Galveston, Texas.
On June 19, 1865, Union Gen. Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston and announced the end of slavery, effectively emancipating the remaining enslaved individuals in Texas. This momentous event became known as Juneteenth, a combination of "June" and "nineteenth."
Juneteenth has become an occasion to honor ancestors, recognize their sacrifices, and celebrate the achievements and contributions of Black Americans to the nation. The holiday is marked by various activities such as parades, picnics, musical performances, historical reenactments and educational events, fostering a sense of community, unity and pride.
It offers an opportunity to educate and raise awareness about the history of slavery, the struggles endured by African Americans, and the ongoing fight against systemic racism. Juneteenth empowers individuals to engage in conversations, advocate for equality, and work towards creating a more just society.
Over the years, Juneteenth has gained increasing recognition and support at both the local and national levels. Numerous states have officially recognized Juneteenth as a state holiday or observance, dedicating resources to public events and educational initiatives.
In 2021, Juneteenth was **officially declared** a federal holiday in the United States, further solidifying its significance and the importance of acknowledging the legacy of slavery.
Juneteenth is an occasion to honor the past, address present challenges and strive for a more inclusive and equitable future. It stands as a momentous celebration of freedom, resilience and the indomitable spirit of the African American community.
As we commemorate Juneteenth, let us embrace the opportunity to learn and empathize by recognizing the significance of this historical event and engaging in meaningful conversations.FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Hill AFB 



Juneteenth 



Emancipation Day 



Emancipation Proclamation 



community 



Unity 



Pride 



sacrifice 



celebrate 



equality 



Black History 



One Team One Fight 



observance 



diversity 



inclusion 



June 19 



federal holiday 



slavery 



racism 



history 



knowledge 



freedom day Related Links
        2023 DoD Juneteenth National Independence Day Observance
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21

- 1338 V

UNPUBLISHED

CLIFTON FOLEY and KELLI FOLEY

, on behalf of their deceased minor child,

N.F

. ,

Petitioner s

,
v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: February 9, 2022

Withdrawal of petition ; Order concluding proceedings

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS 1

On May 7, 2021

, Clifton and Kelli Foley filed a petition for compensation on behalf of their minor child, N.F.

, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

— 1 0 through 34

. 2 Petitioner s allege d that N.F

. suffered injuries after receiving a human papillomavirus vaccination on May 7, 2018, that ultimately led to N.F. ’ s d eath

. ECF no. 1.

Because a decision had not been issued within the time specified in Vaccine Rule 10(b), a notice issued advising that “ that the petitioner may withdraw the petition

under section 300aa

— 21(b) of this title or the petitioner may choose under section

300aa

— 21(b) of this title to have the petition remain before the special master. ” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

— 12 (g )

. O n January 8, 2022

, Petitioner s timely filed a notice to withdraw

the petition pursuant to 42 U

. S

. C

. § 300aa

— 21(b).

In light of Petitioners ’ election to withdraw the petition pursuant to 42 U

. S

. C

. §

300aa

— 21(b) (promulgated as Vaccine Rule 10(d)), Petitioner s’ request to withdraw the petition is GRANTED . Accordingly, this Order hereby notifies the Clerk of Court that proceedings “on the merits” of this petition are now concluded, but no judgment “on the merits” should be entered by the Clerk ’s Office.

1 Although I have not formally designated this Order for publication, I am required to post it on the United

States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this

case

, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Order will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7284

GEORGE LEE LAWRENCE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD F. MOATS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE

OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-1219-PJM)

Submitted: December 15, 1998 Decided: January 11, 1999

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Lee Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. Lawrence v. Moats, No. CA-97-1219-PJM (D. Md. Aug.

18, 1998). We also find that the bench conference from which

Appellant was excluded was not a stage of the proceedings during

which his presence was constitutionally required. 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.

DISMISSED
|   | 1. | I am a duly authorized officer of BMW Financial Services NA, LLC; |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | I have reviewed the terms of that certain Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 1, 2011 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, as Seller, Servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”), Administrator and Custodian, Citibank, N.A., as Indenture Trustee, BMW FS Securities LLC, as Depositor, and BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2011-A, as Issuer and I have made, or have caused to be made under my supervision, a detailed review of the activities of the Servicer and the performance of its obligations thereunder during the period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013; |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on the review described in paragraph 2, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects during the period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, except as set forth below. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:     | /s/ Joachim Hensel                          |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                        | Name:  Joachim HenselTitle: Vice President – Finance & CFOBMW Financial Services NA, LLC                                                             |
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 40840 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
FRANCISCO JAVIER CONTRERAS

- ABINA, also known as Francisco Javier Contreras

- Avina , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:18

- CR

- 715

- 1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent F rancisco J avier C ontreras

- A bina has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States

v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Contreras

- Abina h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 30, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-40840 Document: 00514976228 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2019No. 18

- 40840

2 record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous is sue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-40840 Document: 00514976228 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2019
#### Boaz, Marklee & Co. v. B. B. Paddock et als.

(No. 364, Op. Book No. 1, p. 257.)

Appeal from Tarrant County.

May 7, 1877.

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 39. *Defective service in justice’s court.*On appeal from a justice’s to the county court, it is error for the latter court to dismiss the case because of defective service in the justice’s court. In the county court the trial is *de novo,*and the want of proper citation and service would not authorize a dismissal of the suit. [Sheldon v. City of San Antonio, 25 Tex. Sup. 177.]

§ 40. *Trial de novo.*A meritorious defense could be as available on the trial *de novo*in the district or county court „as before the justice. If there be such defense, relief can be had without remanding the cause. [Perry v. Rhode, 20 Tex. 729.] .

Reversed and remanded.
#### McConnell & Bourland v. Bruggerhoff & Heidenheimer.

(No. 896, Op. Book No. 2, p. 217.)

Appeal from Brown County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1004. *Assignment of errors.*Where the charge of the court was voluminous, embracing several propositions, and the assignment of error in relation thereto was: “ The court erred in its instructions given the jury and did not charge the law applicable to the case,” such assignment was held to be insufficient — not in compliance with the rule which requires that the error shall be distinctly set forth. [Trammell v. McDade, 29 Tex. 360; Fisk v. Wilson, 15 Tex. 430.] And an assignment that the court erred “in refusing to give the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth instructions asked by defendants’ counsel,” was likewise held to be insufficient to require of the court consideration. [Clements v. Hearne and wife, 45 Tex. 415.]

*564March 30, 1881.

§ 1005. *Fraudulent conveyance; notice to vendee of fraudulent intent of vendor.*To invalidate a conveyance made to hinder, delay or defraud the creditors of the vendor, it is not necessary that the evidence'should show that the vendee had actual knowledge of the fraudulent intent of his vendor. If the vendee was in possession of such facts as would reasonably satisfy an individual of the fraudulent intent of the vendor, or put him upon inquiry in relation thereto, this would be constructive notice of the vendor’s fraudulent intent, and sufficient to affect the vendee with its vice. In order that the purchaser from a fraudulent vendor may be protected, he must not only have paid value, but he must not have known, or have had reason to know or believe, that he was enabling his vendor to make a disposition of property for his own benefit which of right belonged to his creditors. [Humphries v. Freeman, 22 Tex. 45; Garahy v. Bayley & Co. 25 Tex. Sup. 294.]

§ 1006. *Charge reguested; court is not bound to correct, etc.*The court is under no obligations to change or modify instructions asked, so as to make them proper and legal, nor to subdivide its paragraphs, separating the possible good from the erroneous sections of it. [Wells v. Barnett, 7 Tex. 584.]

§ 1007. *Refusal of charge; not always reversible error.*It is not every error of the court in refusing to give instructions requested which will require the reversal of the judgment. It must be shown that injury might have resulted from the error. [Carter v. Eames, 44 Tex. 544; Salinas v. Wright, 11 Tex. 572; Hollingsworth v. Holshousen, 17 Tex. 41.] There is a wide difference between the possible effect of giving erroneous instructions and the refusal to give proper ones. In the one case, the presumption is that the erroneous' instruction misled the jury; in the other, that presumption does not arise.

Reversed and reformed.
News United States Air Force
 USAF approves beddown of F-22 FTU at JBLEPublished June 25, 2021
                        
                        
                        Air Combat Command Public Affairs
                **LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force has signed the Record of Decision approving **Joint Base Langley-Eustis** as the future home for the **F-22 Raptor** Formal Training Unit.
The Air Force is awaiting the completion of the tactical air study before solidifying timelines for planned force structure moves.
This decision was based on a thorough environmental analysis, including the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement and consideration of inputs from the public and regulatory agencies.
Consolidating the F-22 fleet at Joint Base Langley-Eustis would make use of existing force structure, which would increase aircraft availability and shorten training timelines. This, in turn, would improve pilot production rates and readiness.
The F-22 FTU was previously based at **Tyndall Air Force Base**, Florida. Due to damage from Hurricane Michael at the installation, the FTU was temporarily relocated to **Eglin Air Force Base**, Florida while the Air Force used its strategic basing process to determine the unit’s permanent location.
The full ROD can be found in the Federal Register **here**.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Air Combat Command 



Joint Base Langley-Eustis 



F-22 



Formal Training Unit 



Record of Decision 



ROD 



FTU
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 85 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5369]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          TRIBUTE TO LES ASPIN

  (Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, last night America lost a great military 
thinker and I lost a friend. The death of Les Aspin, former Democratic 
Congressman from Wisconsin and Secretary of Defense, shocked our 
Nation. Les Aspin was my friend. I enjoyed my association with him 
while we worked together in the House Armed Services Committee and 
later while he was Secretary of Defense.
  He was a genuine defense intellectual who understood military and 
strategic issues. More important, he recognized the threats we face in 
a dangerous and unstable world. As chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services, he helped fashion the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act of 1986. He also supported the use of American arms 
to bring an end to the regime of Manuel Noriega in Panama in 1988 and 
to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991.
  He shaped the Bottom-Up Review which is the framework of today's 
force structure and our national strategy.
  I was active in his campaign, his election, and reelection as 
chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services. While chairman, he 
was kind enough to appoint me to head the military education panel 
which examined all 10 of America's war colleges.
  I shall miss him. We shall miss him. America has lost an outstanding 
expert in military and national security. And I have lost a good 
friend.

                          ____________________
```
#### Singer Manuf’g Co. v. Wood & Davis.

(No. 1505, Op. Book No. 2, p. 468.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1177. *Pleading; sufficiency of petition wpon an account for commissions on sales, etc.*Appellees sued appellants for commissions on sales and leases made of appellants’ machines under a contract which allowed appellees thirty per cent, on the amount of such sales and leases. The contract required appellees to make to appellants weekly reports in writing, upon blanks furnished by the company, of all such sales and leases, and to forward with the reports all notes and lease contracts. The petition alleged the contract and the performance of it by plaintiffs; the making and forwarding of the reports, notes, etc., and the amount of commissions due them under the contract, and the refusal of the company to pay the same, but the petition did not allege specifically the amounts for which the machines were sold or leased, the times when the prices were payable and when collected. But it notified the defendant to produce on the trial the written reports made by appellees, which would show these facts specifically. A general demurrer to the petition was overruled. *Held,*that the petition was sufficient. The plaintiffs’ cause of action was sufficiently alleged upon general demurrer, and if at all obnoxious *673to special exceptions, the overruling the exceptions could have resulted in no injury to appellants. [Hardy v. De Leon, 5 Tex. 211; Davis v. Loftin, 6 Tex. 489.]

October 29, 1881.

§ 1178. *Burden of proof; prima facie case.*Appellees’ right to recover commissions was dependent upon the collection of the notes and lease contracts. These notes and contracts had been delivered by them in accordance with his contract to the company. They were past due. They were collectible only by the company. The presumption was they had been collected. A *prima facie*case had been made out by appellées entitling them to their commissions. If the notes and contracts had not in fact been collected, the burden was upon the company to prove this fact.

§ 117 9. *Counterclaim; individual debt of a firm.*In a suit by a partnership, the defendant cannot offset the plaintiff’s demand with a debt against an individual member of ■ the partnership, without showing the insolvency of such member, or an agreement of the partnership to that effect. [Henderson v. Gilliam & Co. 12 Tex. 71.]

Affirmed.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: COVID-19 Vaccination Rollout, and Airman MentorshipPublished Jan. 8, 2021
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Timmethy James
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)  --**
                This week’s look around the Air Force highlights COVID-19 vaccinations and Airman mentorship takes center stage to begin the new year. (Produced by Staff Sgt. Timmethy James)



For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:**- JBA first responders are base’s first recipients of historic COVID-19 vaccine****- Airmen receive initial COVID-19 vaccine**Featured Video 



AFTV 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



Air Force 



AF 



USAF 



COVID 



covid19 



vaccine 



vaccines 



vaccination 



response 



COVID response 



mentor 



mentorship 



Mentoring 



Air Force Materiel Command 



Air Force Materiel Command Mentorship Program