alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Moody deploys first HC-130JsPublished Dec. 3, 2015
                        
                        By Senior Airman Ryan Callaghan
                        
                        
                        23rd Wing Public Affairs
                **MOODY AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. (AFNS) --**
                The 71st Rescue Squadron deployed two HC-130J Combat King II aircraft for the first time Nov. 27.The HC-130Js, which deployed with more than 60 aircrew, support and maintenance personnel, bring a new set of capabilities to the airspace in support of Operation Inherent Resolve. During the deployment, the aircraft will be used for personnel recovery, ensuring U.S. personnel do not become isolated."It's the start of another era," said Lt. Col. Gary Symon, the 71st RQS director of operations. "We flew the P-model aircraft here for about 15 to 16 years, throughout multiple deployments, and now it's this new aircraft's turn."Replacing the HC-130P/N model aircraft, the HC-130J features improved navigation, threat detection and countermeasure systems, among other additions. It has been at Moody since July 2013."The previous aircraft were built in the early 1960s," Symon said. "There's been significant technological improvement. They can fly faster, they can fly higher, they can carry more and they burn about 10 percent less fuel, so it's much more efficient. Additionally, this aircraft is capable of air-to-air refueling, provides heavy equipment airdrop and has improved sensors on it for personnel recovery."Equally as important to the mission as having the best possible aircraft is having the people to support it, Symon said."They're trained and ready to go," he said. "Every single one of the individuals here has worked very hard over the last couple of months to get themselves combat-mission ready and prepared to go downrange and prove these capabilities."Moody AFB 



ACC 



C-130 



deployment 



rescue 



HC-130J Combat King II
H. R. 1045 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

An Act 

To designate the Federal building located at 210 Walnut Street in Des Moines, 

Iowa, as the ‘‘Neal Smith Federal Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The Federal building located at 210 Walnut Street in Des 

Moines, Iowa, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Neal Smith 

Federal Building’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the Federal building referred 

to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Neal 

Smith Federal Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Garron BETHEL v. STATE of Alabama.

CR-10-0176.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 4, 2011.

Garrón Bethel, pro se.

Troy King, atty. gen., and P. David Bjurberg, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.

WINDOM, Judge.

AFFIRMED BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM.

WELCH, P.J., concurs. KELLUM, J., concurs specially, with opinion.

KELLUM, Judge,

concurring specially.

I write specially to note that this action appears to be Garrón Bethel’s sixth Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition challenging his 1998 convictions for third-degree receiving stolen property and two counts illegal possession of credit cards and his resulting concurrent sentences to 20 years’ imprisonment. I believe that allowing Bethel to file multiple petitions for postconviction relief in which his claims are either precluded or without merit wastes scarce judicial resources. Therefore, I would encourage the circuit court to consider adopting sanctions like those proposed in *Peoples v. State,*531 So.2d 323 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), and *Procup v. Strickland,*792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir.1986), to prevent future frivolous litigation on the part of Bethel and other similarly situated inmates. *See Ex parte Thompson,*38 So.3d 119 (Ala.Crim.App.2009).
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 22

- 3651

_____________________________
J OHN T

. H UGHES , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jennie Kinsey , Judge

. April 3, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. See Parks v. State
, 371 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)

. B.L. T HOMAS , M.K. T HOMAS , and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, Lori A. Willner
, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody
, Attorney General, Christina Piotrowski , Assistant Attorney General
, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 90 (Monday, June 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

  The following reports of committee were submitted:

       By Mr. ROTH, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs: 
     Special report entitled ``Fourth Interim Report on United 
     States Government Efforts to Combat Fraud and Abuse in the 
     Insurance Industry: Problems in Blue Cross/Blue Shield Plans 
     in West Virginia, Maryland, Washington, DC, New York, and 
     Federal Contracts'' (Rept. 104-93).

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 31.1

I, Charles R. Olmstead, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Mid-Con Energy Partners, LP; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: June 24, 2014 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Charles R. Olmstead
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Charles R. Olmstead    
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### Conway & McClintock v. Backus & Co.

(No. 4048.)

Appeal from Mitchell County.

*(Transferred, from, Austin.)*

J. D. Martin, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 266. *Trial of right of ¿property; liability of sureties on claimant's bond; liability upon one bond not discharged by payment of the other; case stated.*Martin, Byrne & Johnson sued A. P. Lee to recover a debt, and had attachment levied upon certain property as the property of said A. P. Lee. A. J. Lee claimed said property and executed bond, with appellants as his sureties, for trial of the right of property thereto. Martin, Byrne & Johnson recovered judgment against A. P. Lee for their debt and costs, and a foreclosure of their attachment lien upon the property claimed by A. J. Lee was declared, and judgment was also rendered against appellants’ sureties upon the claim bond for the value of said property. This judgment was paid in full by appellants. Subsequent to the levy of the attachment in favor of Martin, Byrne & Johnson, appellees sued A. P. Lee to recover a debt he owed them, and had an attachment levied upon the same property which had been seized under the attachment in favor of Martin, Byrne & Johnson. A. J. Lee again claimed the property and executed a claimant’s bond with appellants as his sureties. Upon the trial of this claim appellants pleaded the payment by them of the judgment in favor of Martin, Byrne & *324Johnson, contending that such payment released them from liability upon the second claimant’s bond, as said judgment amounted to the full value of the property. This plea was disregarded, and the claimant having failed to establish a right to the property, judgment was rendered against him and the sureties upon said claim bond for the debt sued for, etc., the same being less than the value of the property. *Held:*The judgment is correct. The payment of the judgment in favor of Martin, Byrne & Johnson by the sureties did not release them from liability upon the claimant’s bond in this case. When that judgment was discharged the property still remained subject to the subsequent attachment lien of appellees. It did not become the property of appellants, nor did they acquire any right thereto by reason of their having discharged the first attachment lien. It was still the property of A. P. Lee and subject to appellee’s judgment unless the claimant should establish his right thereto, and he having failed to do so, appellants, as his sureties, were liable for appellee’s debt, etc.

February 26, 1887.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5626]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                             STUDENT LOANS

  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor in the Memorial Day break 
to have been chosen as the commencement speaker at two schools, Trinity 
College in Hartford and Central Connecticut State University in 
Connecticut. As a result, I talked to many students during this time 
that we were in our districts. They are very worried.
  A perfect example of these students right here is Vincent Federici. 
He has worked hard in high school, got good grades, got accepted to a 
good college. His mother is a computer worker, his father works at a 
machine shop. They have worked hard to make sure that Vincent can go to 
college. They have three sons coming along. They have put every dollar 
in order. They know where every penny is going.
  Mr. Speaker, as we consider changes in the Student Loan Program, I 
ask Members to think about Vincent and the millions of other young men 
and women across this country who are doing the right thing, going to 
college so they can compete in this world competitive market. Please, 
Mr. Speaker, do not make the students that are going to college pay 
more and have a bigger burden. It is the wrong thing to do.

                          ____________________
```
# C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f

t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

A T L A N T A

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l s h e re b y p a sse s t h e f o l l o w i n g o rd e r:

A 1 7 E 0 0 1 7

. M O R R IS R IC K S v

. R H O N D A SM IT H

, B U T T S C O U N T Y

C L E R K ’ S O F F IC E

.

M o r r i s R i c k s h a s f

i l e d i n t h i s C o u r t a Pe t i t i o n Fo r a W r i t o f M a n d a m u s,

se e k i n g t h e i ssu a n c e o f a n o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t

h e C l e r k o f B

u t t s C o u n t y Su p e r i o r C o u r t

t o t a k e c e r t a i n a c t i o n s r e l a

t e d t o t h e f i l i n g o f h i s p r o

- se m o t i o n s.

W e l a c k j u r i sd i c t i o n o f t

h i s c a se

. M

a n d a m u s i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y t

h a t

f a l l s w i t h i n o u r Su p r e m e C o u r t ’ s g e n e r a l a p p e l l a t e j u r i sd i c t i o n

. Se e S t e n d

a h l v

. C o b b

C o u n t y

, 2 8 4 G a

. 5 2 5

, n

. 1 ( 6 6 8 SE 2 d 7 2 3 ) ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; G a

. C o n st

. o f 1 9 8 3

, A r t

. V I

, Se c

. V I

,

Pa r

. I I I ( 5 )

. I t i s f

o r t h e Su p r e m e C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r R i c k s h a s p r o p e r l y

c o m p l i e d w i t h a n y r e q u i si t e p r o c e d u r e t o i n v o k e i t s j u r i sd i c t i o n

. Se e H o w a rd v

.

F u l l e r

, S0 8 O 0 3 5 7 ( d e c i d e d

, N o v e m b e r 3 0

, 2 0 0 7 ) ( r e i t e r a

t i n g p r o c e d u r e t o b e f

o l l o w e d

b e f o r e s e e k i n g t o i n v o k e Su p r e m e C o u r t ’ s o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i s su e a w r i t o f

m a n d a m u s a g a i n st a t

r i a l j u d g e )

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, t h i s a p p e a l i s h e r e b y T R

A N SFE R R E D

t o t h e Su p r e m e C o u r t f

o r d i s p o si t i o n

.

C

o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t l a n t a

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t

r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t

h e s e a l o f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/22/2016 November 22, 2016
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              ADJOURNMENT

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shays). Pursuant to the provisions of 
House Concurrent Resolution 72, 104th Congress, the House stands 
adjourned until noon on Tuesday, June 6, 1995.
  Thereupon, at 2 o'clock and 22 minutes p.m., pursuant to House 
Concurrent Resolution 72, the House adjourned until Tuesday, June 6, 
1995, at 12 noon.

                          ____________________
```
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1137 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase to $2,000 the amount 

of the Medal of Honor special pension under that title and to provide 

for payment of that pension to the surviving spouse of a deceased 

Medal of Honor recipient. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2007 

Mr. BROWN of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. MICHAUD, and Mr. MILLER

of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase to $2,000 

the amount of the Medal of Honor special pension under 

that title and to provide for payment of that pension 

to the surviving spouse of a deceased Medal of Honor 

recipient. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MEDAL OF HONOR SPECIAL PENSION. 

4 (a) INCREASE IN RATE OF SPECIAL PENSION.—Sub5 section (a) of section 1562 of title 38, United States Code, 

6 is amended by striking ‘‘$1,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$2,000’’. 

7 (b) SPECIAL PENSION FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES.— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1137 IH

1 (1) SURVIVING SPOUSE BENEFIT.—Such sub2 section is further amended— 

3 (A) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(a)’’; and 

4 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

5 paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(2) The Secretary shall pay special pension under 

7 this section to the surviving spouse of a person who was 

8 awarded a Medal of Honor as described in section 1560(b) 

9 of this title. However, no special pension shall be paid to 

10 a surviving spouse of a person under this section unless 

11 such surviving spouse was married to such person— 

12 ‘‘(A) for one year or more; or 

13 ‘‘(B) for any period of time if a child was born 

14 of the marriage, or was born to them before the 

15 marriage.’’. 

16 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

17 (A) Subsection (d) of such section is 

18 amended by inserting ‘‘or married to more than 

19 one person who has been awarded the medal of 

20 honor,’’ after ‘‘honor,’’. 

21 (B) Subsection (f)(1) of such section is 

22 amended by striking ‘‘this section’’ and insert23 ing ‘‘subsection (a)(1)’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HR 1137 IH

1 (C) Section 103(d)(5) of such title is 

2 amended by adding at the end the following 

3 new subparagraph: 

4 ‘‘(E) Section 1562(a)(2), relating to Medal of 

5 Honor special pension.’’. 

6 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply with respect to payment of pension 

8 under section 1562 of title 38, United States Code, for 

9 months beginning after the date of the enactment of this 

10 Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
News United States Air Force
 James discusses priorities with Stuttgart-area AirmenPublished Nov. 23, 2015
                        
                        By U.S. Africa Command Office of Public Affairs
                **STUTTGART, Germany (AFNS) --**
                Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James met with senior leaders and Airmen during a visit to U.S. Africa Command Nov. 18.The visit to AFRICOM was the culmination of a weeklong trip where James made stops in Morocco, Egypt and Djibouti, among other locations.Throughout the day, James met with AFRICOM senior leaders and was briefed on a variety of missions and programs. But it was a luncheon with about 30 Airmen from across the Stuttgart community that gave James the kind of opportunity she enjoys most about her job: a chance to be engaged with the men and women with whom she proudly serves.“It’s an honor to be here today so I can thank you for all you do in support of our military, because what you’re doing is making a difference,” James said.Following the luncheon, James met with about 150 Airmen from AFRICOM, U.S. European Command, and Special Operations Commands Europe and Africa during an Airmen’s Call where she addressed questions from the attendees and talked Air Force priorities.James took time to bring the Airmen up-to-date on the accomplishments and insights she gleaned during a fruitful trip that included visits with senior leaders in Morocco, a first-ever stop at Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa in Djibouti, and completion of the delivery of F-16 Fighting Falcons and an AH-64 Apache gunship to Egypt.She based the rest of her discussion around her top three priorities: taking care of people, getting the right balance for what we need today and for tomorrow, and making every budget dollar count.“It’s challenging when you don’t know what your budget is going to be,” James said, “but we are now fairly certain that we will soon have a two-year budget agreement ... and this means stability.”James also praised Airmen for keeping the Air Force strong despite it being the smallest it has ever been.“We’re the smallest Air Force we’ve been since the 1990s, and the average age of our aircraft is 28 years, and still, we remain a global power,” she said.priorities 



Stuttgart 



Germany 



SecAF
Exhibit 14
  Code of
    Business Conduct and Ethics
  Overview
      Compliance
    with Laws, Rules and Regulations
    Employees, officers and directors shall
    not discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass or in any other
    manner discriminate against an employee because he or she in
    good faith reports any such violation.
  Conflicts
    of Interest
      
    No Company employee, officer or director shall perform services
    as a consultant, employee, officer, director, advisor or in any
    other capacity for, or have a financial interest in, a
    competitor of the Company, other than services performed at the
    request of the Company and other than a financial interest
    representing less than one percent (1%) of the outstanding
    shares of a publicly held company; and
    No Company employee, officer or director shall use his or her
    position with the Company to influence a transaction with a
    supplier or customer in which such person has any personal
    interest.   1




---



##### 



Insider
    Trading
    Confidentiality
        Honest
    and Ethical Conduct and Fair Dealing
    Protection
    and Proper Use of Corporate Assets
     2




---



##### 



Gifts
    and Gratuities
          Accuracy
    of Books and Records and Public Reports
        Concerns
    Regarding Accounting or Auditing Matters
          follow-up
   3




---



##### 



Waivers
    of this Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
      Reporting
    and Compliance Procedures
    (508-553-8760), e-mail hmitchell@echotx.com
         4




---



##### 



Dissemination
    and Amendment
       5
578 A.2d 1226

#### IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH C. STRANSKY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 10, 1990.

ORDER

JOSEPH C. STRANSKY of DUNELLEN, who was admitted to the Bar of this State in 1974 and was thereafter temporarily suspended from the practice of law, having been Ordered to show cause why his temporary suspension should not be continued, and he, by his attorney, having consented thereto,

And good cause appearing;

*187It is ORDERED that the temporary suspension of JOSEPH C. STRANSKY is hereby continued pending final disposition of ethics proceedings against him and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the Office of Attorney Ethics take such protective action, pursuant to *Rule*1:20-11(c), as may be appropriate pending the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with suspended attorneys.

WITNESS, the Honorable Robert N. Wilentz, Chief Justice, at Trenton, this 10th day of September, 1990.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 90 (Monday, June 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    RECESS UNTIL 9:15 A.M. TOMORROW

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in 
recess until 9:15 a.m., Tuesday, June 6.
  Thereupon, the Senate, at 6:58 p.m., recessed until tomorrow, 
Tuesday, June 6, 1995, at 9:15 a.m.

                          ____________________
```