alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Airman vaults to spot on US Olympic teamPublished July 8, 2016
                        
                        By David Vergun
                **EUGENE, Ore. (AFNS) --**
                First Lt. Cale Simmons, who cleared the bar at 5.65 meters -- 18 feet, 6.4 inches -- in the men's pole vault finals, secured a spot on the U.S. Olympic team at the U.S. Olympic team track and field finals here July 4.
Simmons finished second at the finals, just behind Army 2nd Lt. Sam Kendricks, who cleared the bar at 5.91 meters, setting an Olympic trials record.
Simmons said he vaulted 5.72 meters, his best ever, in Denver last month, and he hopes to earn a medal at the Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro in August.**Rigorous training**
Besides pole vaulting in high school in Sacramento, California, Simmons said, he vaulted at the U.S. Air Force Academy as well.
He said his current training regimen includes heavy doses of sprinting, some gymnastics and weight training, as well as plyometric and isometric exercises. The Air Force, he added, provides good full-time training assistance via the World Class Athlete Program, of which he is a part.
In his off time, Simmons said he enjoys rock climbing, skydiving and trampoline work. Although that's not part of his WCAP training program, he believes it helps with body control and situational awareness. "I'd like to think they play a role," he said.**All in the family**
Simmons's identical twin brother, 1st Lt. Rob Simmons is a C-17 Globemaster III pilot stationed at Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina. He and an older sister, Capt. Rachel Schaefer, stationed in Colorado Springs, Colorado, also are pole vaulters and Academy graduates.
Interestingly, Simmons said, although he and his siblings serve in the Air Force and are pole vaulters, they are the first in their family to participate in the sport or to serve in the Air Force. All were recruited by the Academy to be pole vaulters, he added, although he's the only one of the three who currently is doing it competitively.**Living the dream**
"The Air Force has been great to me," Simmons said. For his first two years, he was stationed in Germany as a contracting officer. Although there wasn't a pole vault program there, he said, he had the most wonderful time of his life, seeing the sights of Europe during his off-duty time.
Fortunately, he said, the hiatus didn't seem to hurt his pole vaulting abilities too much; he snapped right back to being at the top of his game with some training.
Serving in the Air Force, pole vaulting and being in the WCAP is like "living the dream," Simmons said, and he hopes that will last well beyond the Olympics.
The only thing sweeter than that would be for "my brother to fly me to Rio in his C-17 and drop me into the stadium," he added.U.S. Air Force 



pole vault 



Olympics 



Rio de Janeiro 



sports
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: April 15Published April 15, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- In this look around the Air Force, two remotely-piloted aircraft initiatives are approved and F-35 Lightning II candidate bases are named. Hosted by Senior Airman Nicholas Koetz.
For previous episodes, click here.
Related links:Air Force approves RPA initiativesAF names candidate bases, criteria for choosing next F-35A sitesATAF 



Around the Air Force 



RPA 



Reaper 



Predator 



F-35
#### Geo. Haby v. C. Haby.

(No. 1757, Op. Book No. 3, p. 508.)

Appeal from Medina County.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§157. *Appeal bond from justice’s court; .condition of.*Aii' appeal bond' from justice’s to county court was conditioned “that the said George Haby shall prosecute his appeal to effect, and satisfy the j iidgmerfi, or decree that *63may be rendered against the obligors in this bond.” *Held,*that this was in substantial compliance with the law. [E. S. art. 1639.]

March 19, 1881.

Eeversed and remanded.
## NO. 12

- 14

- 00091

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KIMBERLY COLETTE WIL SON,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO

. 2

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPI

NION

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by Appellant

and her counsel. No decision has been delivered in this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant’s

motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2 (a).

Opinion delivered April 30, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXA S

JUDGMENT

APRIL 30 , 2014

NO. 12

- 14

- 00091

- CR

KIMBERLY COLETE WIL SON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No 2

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 002

- 81950

- 12)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion o f the Appellant to dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and

that the decision be certified to the court below f or observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, and Hoyle , J

.
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATIONS**
     I, Brent W. Christensen, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Meade Instruments Corp.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting   Date: May 27, 2005  By: /s/ Brent W. Christensen     Senior Vice President — Finance and CFO
417 A.2d 739

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. William LAMBETH, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Aug. 27, 1979.

Filed Dec. 28, 1979.

*461Anita M. Cohen, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Robert B. Lawler, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before HOFFMAN, EAGEN and HESS, JJ.*

*

 Chief Justice Michael J. Eagen of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and Judge Warren K. Hess of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania, are sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

After trial by a three-judge panel pursuant to a waiver of jury, William Lambeth was found guilty of murder of the first degree and two related weapons charges. His motion for post-verdict relief was refused and from subsequent sentences he has taken a direct appeal. He alleges insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and ineffectiveness of trial counsel. The latter issue was not raised before the trial court.

Insofar as the sufficiency of the evidence is concerned, we fully agree with the opinion of the trial court regarding this issue. We have carefully reviewed the evidence and have concluded that the record supports the verdict. *Commonwealth v. Robinson,*468 Pa. 575, 364 A.2d 665 (1976); *Commonwealth v. Moore,*473 Pa. 169, 373 A.2d 1101 (1976).

On the issue of alleged inefficiency of counsel we must remand. In his opening statement trial counsel stated he would present evidence to establish that there was a prior argument between defendant and the victim and that the victim made threats against defendant. However, no evidence was presented. Neither was argument made to attempt to bring about a verdict of guilty of a lesser degree of homicide. On the record, the fact finders had little alterna*462tive. In passing on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the simple question before the court is whether counsel’s choice of strategy had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interest. *Commonwealth v. Mabie,*467 Pa. 464, 359 A.2d 369 (1973); *Commonwealth v. Hudson,*455 Pa. 117, 314 A.2d 231 (1973). While we can see no basis, counsel should be afforded the opportunity to explain his choice of strategy at an evidentiary hearing.1

It is also contended that ineffectiveness is demonstrated by counsel’s failure to present character testimony on behalf of defendant, who had no prior criminal record. Counsel may well have a logical reason for such inaction but the record, of course, is silent.

For the reasons we have indicated, the judgments of sentence are vacated and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing. If ineffectiveness of counsel is established, a new trial shall be granted; if trial counsel’s assistance was not ineffective, the judgments of sentence shall be reinstated.

Judgments of sentence vacated and case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1

. It is contended that counsel was ineffective for withdrawing a pre-trial motion to suppress a statement. Since the Commonwealth did not introduce the statement, we cannot fault counsel’s decision to withdraw the motion.
422 A.2d 1162

#### Commonwealth v. Emanuele, Appellant.

Argued April 9, 1979.

Robert German, for appellant; K. E. Mericli, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, P. J., and WIEAND and HOFFMAN, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
News United States Air Force
 Luke commander brings home flagship F-35Published April 30, 2015
                        
                        By Capt. Ryan DeCamp
                        
                        
                        56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFNS) --**
                The 56th Fighter Wing flagship F-35 Lightning II arrived at Luke Air Force Base April 28, it was the base's 22nd F-35.
Flying the aircraft from Lockheed Martin's Forth Worth, Texas, plant to Arizona was Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus, the 56th FW commander. The tail number for the aircraft is 5056 and the last two numbers represent the 56th FW.
"The flagship's arrival is significant for Luke because it serves as a sign of our identity in who we are and what we're here to do," Pleus said. "Next month we'll officially change our mission to training the world's best F-35 and F-16 (Fighting Falcon) pilots while deploying mission-ready warfighters. This jet represents the fact that we prepare Airmen to defend our country around the world wherever we're called."
The flagship's arrival coincides with the beginning of the first class of F-35 students that will begin in May. Pleus served as the wing's first official student so he could help refine and validate the training program for future students.
Luke will receive 144 F-35s comprising six squadrons by 2024. The Glendale, Arizona, base now has 20 U.S. F-35s and two from the Royal Australian Air Force. All 22 aircraft are part of the 61st Fighter Squadron.
The 62nd FS will be the base's second F-35 squadron. It is scheduled to stand up in June and begin flying in September. That unit will host pilots from Norway and Italy. Overall, 11 countries will train at Luke on the Lightning II.
"It's a busy time for Luke, but I couldn't be prouder of the work our Airmen are doing in setting the Air Force up for success," Pleus said. "The arrival of our flagship is another sign the 56th will be looked upon to train the best F-35 pilots for the U.S. and our allies for decades to come, as we've done in the F-16 since 1982.”F-35 



Luke AFB 



ACC 



56th Fighter Wing 



Joint Strike Fighter 



F-35 Lightning II
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Renal Care Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David M. Dill, Executive Vice President and 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, to my knowledge:

         (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.


/s/ David M. Dill
-----------------
David M. Dill
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2003
News United States Air Force
 New flight milestone in Hexa testingPublished July 14, 2022
                        
                        By Samuel King Jr.
                        
                        
                        Eglin Air Force Base Public Affairs
                **EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) --**
                The LIFT Hexa, an electric, vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, or eVTOL, recently completed its first test flight at Duke Field.The unmanned aircraft, piloted via remote control, used 18 motors and propellers to fly for approximately 10 minutes and reach a height of about 50 feet during the test flight.The test was an important first step toward the incorporating the Hexa into operations at a controlled military airfield.  Duke Field is an auxiliary field located North of **EglinAir Force Base**’s main base. This flight was completed byHexa 09, one of two aircraft stationed at the installation. Hexa 05 was used for the **first testflight**at Eglin AFB in April.The 413th Flight Test Squadron, the Air Force’s rotary wing developmental test experts, has partnered with **AFWERX**’s**Agility Prime**to advanceeVTOL test and experimentation. The unit, located at Duke Field, provides the coordination, logistics and support for the LIFT team’s developmental ground and flight-testing operations.“This is an opportunity to leverage some of the unit’s expertise with rotary aircraft and apply it to this new field of electric propulsion aircraft,” said Maj. Riley Livermore, 413th FLTS Futures Flight commander. “This flight was an important step in advancing the testing forward.”FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



innovation 



modernizing 



Aircraft 



Hexa 



duke field 



Eglin AFB 



test flight 



413th FTS 



AFwerX 



Agility Prime 



Lift 



drone throne 



Tomorrow’s Air Force 



electric vertical take-off and landing
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 84 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7013-S7014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the 
first and second time by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

           By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Simpson):
       S. 831. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to clarify the tax treatment of certain contributions made 
     pursuant to veterans' reemployment; to the Committee on 
     Finance.
           By Mr. GRAHAM:
       S. 832. A bill to require the Prospective Payment 
     Assessment Commission to develop separate applicable 
     percentage increases to ensure that medicare beneficiaries 
     who receive services from medicare dependent hospitals 
     receive the same quality of care and [[Page S7014]] access to 
     services as medicare beneficiaries in other hospitals, and 
     for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Dole, Mr. 
             Campbell, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
             Kyl, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Craig, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Burns, 
             Mr. Rockefeller, and Mrs. Boxer):
       S. 833. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to more accurately codify the depreciable life of 
     semiconductor manufacturing equipment; to the Committee on 
     Finance.
           By Mr. FAIRCLOTH (for himself, Mr. Dole, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
             Brown, Mr. Burns, Mr. Craig, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms, 
             Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Thurmond):
       S. 834. A bill to restore the American family, reduce 
     illegitimacy, and reduce welfare dependence; to the Committee 
     on Finance.
           By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
       S. 835. A bill to provide for the operation of laboratories 
     to carry out certain public-health functions for the region 
     along the international border with Mexico, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
           By Mr. EXON:
       S. 836. A bill to authorize appropriations for pipeline 
     safety for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
           By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Robb):
       S. 837. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     mint coins in commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the 
     birth of James Madison; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
     and Urban Affairs.
     

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CKE
RESTAURANTS, INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS AS OF AND FOR THE 16-WEEKS ENDED MAY 22, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
MAY 22, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-22-2000
<CASH>                                          17,514
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,827
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     25,525
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               112,134
<PP&E>                                       1,402,960
<DEPRECIATION>                                 355,082
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,546,958
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          190,091
<BONDS>                                        359,225
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           521
<OTHER-SE>                                     540,701
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,546,958
<SALES>                                        527,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               584,328
<CGS>                                          444,923
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  568,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (431)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,695
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,961)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,510)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,451)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,451)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)


</TABLE>