alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 DAF COVID-19 Statistics - Dec. 6, 2022Published Dec. 6, 2022
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Below are current **Coronavirus Disease 2019** statistics for Department of the Air Force personnel.

**DAF TOTAL STATS****CASES***
   **HOSPITALIZED**
   **RECOVERED***
   **DEATHS***Military**
   113,860
   0
   113,090
   16Civilian
   25,044
   0
   24,829
   115Dependents
   19,468
   0
   19,425
   8Contractors
   6,461
   1
   6,415
   32**Total**
   164,833
   1
   163,759
   171*Numbers include all cases reported since the last update Nov. 1.
**Military includes Active and Reserve components.

**DAF TOTAL VACCINATED****ACTIVE DUTY**
   **GUARD**
   **RESERVE**
   **TOTAL FORCE**% Fully Vaccinated
   99%
   94.5%
   95.9%
   97.6%

**DAF APPROVED EXEMPTIONS****ACTIVE DUTY**
   **GUARD**
   **RESERVE**
   **TOTAL FORCE**Medical
   171
   153
   78
   402Administrative
   10
   622
   35
   667*Civilian statistics are unaccounted for.
**Numbers are subject to change.

The Department of the Air Force is complying with the court order to pause all disciplinary and adverse actions for those refusing the COVID-19 vaccine who submitted a timely religious accommodation request. This includes the Air Force Reserve Command processing Airmen to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).

**Medical:** Medical exemptions are determined individually by the member’s medical provider.

**Administrative:** Administrative exemptions are determined individually. For example, if a member obtained a commander-approved submission for separation or retirement by Nov. 1, they are administratively exempt.

**Religious Accommodation:**Religious accommodations are a subset of administrative exemptions and are determined by the MAJCOM/FLDCOM commanders. The DAF has 30 business days (active component in CONUS) to process requests. Members who receive a denial of the accommodation request ha five calendar days from the denial to 1) begin a COVID-19 vaccination regimen, 2) submit an appeal to the final appeal authority or 3) request to separate or retire. Appeals are determined by the DAF’s Surgeon General with inputs from the chaplain and staff judge advocate. Individuals do not have to get immunized as long as their request is in the process of being decided.

Members who continue refusing to obey a lawful order to receive the COVID-19 vaccine after their accommodation request has been denied or retirement/separation has not been approved will be subject to initiation of administrative discharge proceedings.

**Personnel Numbers (approximates):**

323,000 Active Component (U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force)
 103,000 Air National Guard
 64,000 Air Force Reserve
 490,000 Total Force (Active Duty, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve)COVID 



update 



COVID -19 



numbers 



metrics 



statistics
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 3, 2021

t0726 

# Order

Clerk August 3, 2021

162558

PETER HORWOOD and IRINA HORWOOD,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 162558

COA: 350840

Livingston CC: 19

- 030217

- CZ

NORTH AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 22, 2020

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Certification by the Chief Financial Officer
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 on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended
August 9, 2004, of CKE Restaurants, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Theodore Abajian, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a)
or Section 780(d)); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this
certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below. Date: December 17, 2004/s/ Theodore AbajianTheodore AbajianChief Financial Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 12834 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:19

- cr
- 00191

- VMC

- SPF

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus NICHOLAS RENEE ROGERS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ ( April 1, 2021 )

Before ROSENBAUM , NEWSOM, and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Meghan Ann Collins , appointed counsel for Nicholas Rogers in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant

USCA11 Case: 20-12834 Date Filed: 04/01/2021 Page: 1 of 22 and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED , and Rogers ’s conviction and total sentence are AFFIRMED

.

USCA11 Case: 20-12834 Date Filed: 04/01/2021 Page: 2 of 2
#### NORTHWESTERN MARBLE & TILE COMPANY v. OLOF SWENSON.1

December 19, 1919.

No. 21,510.

Construction of building contract — verdict sustained.

Conflicting evidence whether contract required plaintiff to do certain tile work on a roof. Verdict for defendant. *Held:*The verdict must be sustained, because it is not clearly against the evidence and hals been approved by the trial court. [Reporter.]

*467Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $2,657 for material and labor furnished in construction of a building for the University of Minnesota. The answer interposed a counterclaim for $1,400. The case was tried before Haupt, J., who at the close of the testimony denied defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying its motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.

Affirmed.

*A. B. Barelius,*for appellant.

*Kueffner é Marks,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 175 N. W. 99.

Per Curiam.

The principal question presented on this appeal is whether the verdict of the jury is clearly against the evidence. The controversy in the ease centered around the terms of the building contract involved in the action, and whether plaintiff was thereby obligated to do a certain part of the tile work on the roof of the building, plaintiff insisting that the contract did not impose the particular work upon it, while defendant contended to the contrary. The terms of the contract were not clear, and extrinjsic evidence was presented by both parties. It was conflicting and presented a question of fact for the jury. The verdict is not clearly against the evidence, and must be sustained since it has been approved by the trial court. There were no errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence of a character to justify a new trial.

Order affirmed.

Holt, J., took no part.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of EDAC Technologies
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended September 27, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, Dominick A. Pagano, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.





Dated:  November 4, 2003                  /s/ Dominick A. Pagano
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Dominick A. Pagano
                                          Chief Executive Officer


      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to EDAC Technologies Corporation and will be retained by EDAC
Technologies Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNITED
MARKET SERVICES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,200,953
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  442,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                    32,884
<INVENTORY>                                     10,526
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,694,811
<PP&E>                                       6,544,865
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,507,571
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,755,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          992,333
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,378,637
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,863,586)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,755,439
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,890,651
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,974,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               660,240
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                255,630
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            255,630
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              3,050,587
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,306,217
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63
        


</TABLE>
January 8, 1975 

The Honorable Tom Hamilton 

District Attorney 

Courthouse 

Plainview,’ Texas 79072 

Dear Mr. Hamilton: 

Opinion No. H- 489 

Re: Whether quarters of 

fraternal and veterans 

organizations and private 

clubs are “private places” 

within section47.02, Penal 

Code 

You have requested an opinion as to whether quarters of fraternal 

and veterans’ organizations and private clubs are “private places” within 

section 47.02(b) of the Penal Code. 

Chapter 47 of the Penal Code contains the penal provisions proscribing 

gambling and related activities. Section 47.02(b) provides as one element 

of a defense to a gambling prosecution that “the actor engaged in gambling 

in a private place. I’ Section 47,01(7) defines a private place as: 

a place to which the public does not have access, 

and excludes, among other places, streets, 

highways, restaurants, taverns, nightclubs, 

schools, hospitals, and the co-on areas of 

apartment houses, hotels, motels, office 

buildings, transportation facilities and shops. 

Article 666-15e, Penal Auxiliary Laws, part of the Texas Liquor 

Control Act, defines a private club: 

(a) ‘Private Club’ shall mean an association of 

persons, whether unincorporated or incorporated 

under the laws of the State of Texas, for the 

promotion of some common object and whose members must be passed upon and elected as individuals, 

by a committee or board made of members of the 

club. 

p. 2213 
The Honorable Tom Hamilton, page 2 (H-489) 

The Act further implies that services shall be limited to members and 

their guests. 

The State Bar committee which drafted the proposed Penal Code 

discussed the defense in question as follows: 

The committee’s main concern is to prohibit 

social gambling in public places . . . . The defense 

is not extended to clubs and other locations that are 

only nominally private and to which, in fact, the 

public has access. 

State Bar Committee on Revision of Penal Code. 

A Proposed Revision of Texas Penal Code at 330 

(Final Draft 1970). See Practice Commentary. 

Penal Code § 47.02 ;;F?O6. 

The committee’s draft of the defense was adopted by the Legislature 

without change, thus it is reasonable to assume that the Legislature intended 

the provision to have the effect the committee said it would. 

In our opinion, whether quarters of private clubs and fraternal and veterans’ 

organizations are “private places ” for purposes of establishing one element 

of the defense to a gambling prosecution under section 47.02(b) depends on 

whe.th.er such quarters are in fact places to which the public does not have 

acces8, and are not only nominally private. 

SUMMARY 

Whether the quarters of private clubs and fraternal 

and veterans’ organizations are “private places” for 

purposes of the defense to a gambling prosecution 

depends on whether such quarters are in fact places 

to which the pub1i.c does not have access, and are not 

only nominally private. 

Very truly yours, 

A 

Attorney General of Texas 

p. 2214 
The Honorable Tom Hamilton, page 3 (H-489) 

APPROVED: 

DAVID M. KENDALL. First Assistant 

Opinion Committee 

p. 2215
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Transportation.

# ACTION:

Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2010-9-17); Docket DOT-OST-2010-0058.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Transportation is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Dynamic Airways, LLC d/b/a Dynamic Aviation, fit, willing, and able, and awarding it a certificate of public convenience and necessity to engage in interstate charter air transportation of persons, property and mail.

# DATES:

Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than October 1, 2010.

# ADDRESSES:

Objections and answers to objections should be filed in Docket DOT-OST-2010-0058 and addressed to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott A. Faulk, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room W86-487), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9721.

Dated: September 17, 2010.

Susan L. Kurland,

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2010-23787 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LASALLES CHUNG.

January 17, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 4.1




---



##### 



THE BOARD OF THIS CORPORATION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE AND
DETERMINE THE RELATIVE RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES OF CLASSES OR SERIES
OF SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK OTHER THAN COMMON STOCK. THIS CORPORATION WILL FURNISH TO ANY SHAREHOLDER UPON WRITTEN REQUEST
SENT TO ITS PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES, AND WITHOUT CHARGE, A FULL STATEMENT OF THE BOARDS
AUTHORITY TO CREATE AND DETERMINE THE RELATIVE RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES OF
CLASSES OR SERIES OF SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK AS WELL AS THE DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES, LIMITATIONS AND RELATIVE RIGHTS OF
THE SHARES OF EACH CLASS OR SERIES THEN  OUTSTANDING OR AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED.
   TEN COM
    
    
    
    as tenants in commonTEN ENT
    
    
    
    as tenants by the entiretiesJT TEN
    
    
    
    as joint tenants with right of
survivorship and not as tenants
in commonCOM PROP
    
    
    
    as community property
 UNIF GIFT MIN ACT
    
    
    
    Custodian(Cust)      
                 
                
  (Minor)under Uniform Gifts to MinorsAct(State)UNIF TRF MIN ACT
    
    
    
    Custodian (until age)(Cust)under Uniform Transfers(Minor)to Minors Act(State)
    
 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL
SECURITY OR OTHERIDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
 
  
 
 
 
 
 XXNOTICE:
    THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT
MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE
IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.
  ByTHE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION, (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS,
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE
GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15. GUARANTEES BY A NOTARY PUBLIC ARE NOT
ACCEPTABLE. SIGNATURE GUARANTEES MUST
NOT BE DATED.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1124 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 147
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1124

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 15, 2007

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To extend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 5-YEAR REAUTHORIZATION OF TUITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

    (a) Public School Program.--Section 3(i) of the District of 
Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (sec. 38-2702(i), DC Official Code) 
is amended by striking ``each of the 7 succeeding fiscal years'' and 
inserting ``each of the 12 succeeding fiscal years''.
    (b) Private School Program.--Section 5(f) of such Act (sec. 38-
2704(f), DC Official Code) is amended by striking ``each of the 7 
succeeding fiscal years'' and inserting ``each of the 12 succeeding 
fiscal years''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                                       Calendar No. 147

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1124

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To extend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 15, 2007

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

700 

KA 10-00604 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

CHARLES BRYANT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (BARBARA J. DAVIES OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (J. MICHAEL MARION OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County

(Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered March 10, 2010. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the

first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: June 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
583 A.2d 302

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JEFFREY ELLIS.

January 12, 1990.

Certification to Superior Court, Law Division, granted.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7385]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          WAS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE? THE VOTERS HAVE SAID YES

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before turning to today's bad news and it 
is terrible about the Federal debt, let us go through our pop quiz 
routine once more. You remember--one question, one answer:
  Question: How many million dollars in $1 trillion? While you are 
arriving at an answer, let us acknowledge that it was the U.S. Congress 
that ran up the Federal debt that now exceeds $4.8 trillion.
  To be exact, as of the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, May 23, 
the Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,885,334,984,188.51, 
meaning that every man, woman, and child in America now owes $18,544.81 
computed on a per capita basis.
  Mr. President, how many million in a trillion? There are a million 
million in a trillion, and the Federal debt now exceeds four million 
million, 885 billion dollars. Get the picture?

                          ____________________
```
583 A.2d 317

#### IN THE MATTER OF STANDARD TANK CLEANING CORPORATION.

February 6, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.