alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Avionics technicians provide brains behind brawnPublished Jan. 13, 2016
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Maeson L. Elleman
                        
                        
                        18th Wing Public Affairs
                **KADENA AIR BASE, Japan (AFNS) --**
                Air Force avionics technicians provide the brains behind the brawn that keeps the F-15 Eagle flying.Despite its size, nearly 64 feet from nose to tail and almost 43 feet from wingtip to wingtip, the F-15 is a highly maneuverable mechanical monster in the air.Capable of reaching speeds in excess of 1,800 mph, this speed demon has been a premiere fighter in the Air Force's arsenal for more than 40 years, maintaining air superiority over the battlefield with a perfect kill-loss ratio.However, avionics technicians help ensure these aircraft are always prepared and ready for flight. "For our pilots to be able to fly, fight and win, they need the best and most reliable aircraft with the most advanced avionics systems," said Tech. Sgt. Luis Marrero, the 67th Aircraft Maintenance Unit assistant specialist section chief. "That's exactly what we provide."Avionics specialists are the experts for practically every electronic system within the jet that provides information on altitude, range or location.Though the first generations of the C and D model aircraft entered the force in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Air Force has upgraded many of these components to make the aircraft that much more lethal over the battlefield."For the F-15, it's all integrated, everything from communication to navigation and radar," said Senior Airman Caleb Stephens, a 67th AMU avionics specialist. "We don't put the upgrades in, but once they come out, they're 100 percent our responsibility. So far, the upgrades are very maintenance friendly; they're durable and reliable."For seemingly countless hours, the avionics systems maintainers troubleshoot and correct bugs in the systems.Frequently, the problems are small and quick to fix, but some days bring about new puzzles to challenge the technicians, often leading to extensive troubleshooting, part replacement and a lot of head-scratching."There's a lot going on with the jets, so you have to know how things work together so that if something isn't working correctly, you know where to start looking to try and fix the problem," Stephens said. Despite its complexities, Marrero said getting the job done makes it worthwhile. "I love to see the satisfaction on the faces of my technicians when they return an aircraft to service and it accomplishes its mission," Marrero said. "It feels great when you know you provided the best aircraft for our pilots to be able to complete the mission."Kadena AB 



Japan 



PACAF 



F-15 Eagle 



F-15 



avionics
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ALBERT SAWYER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 270 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW

, this 6th day of November, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

and “Motion for Plea Agreements made by the Commonwealth” are DENIED.
#### Grant & Kenner v. Fowzes Bros.

(No. 1944.)

Appeal from Webb County.

Showalter & Nicholson and R. G. Street, counsel for appellants.

E. F. Hall, counsel for appellees.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 105. *Appjeal bond in justice's court; time within which it must be filed; motion for •new trial must be acted on within ten days from rendition of judgment.'*On November 25, 1884, appellees recovered judgment against appellants in justice’s court. Two days thereafter, appellants filed their motion for a new trial, which motion was not acted upon until December 10,1884, when it was overruled. On December 13, 1884, appellants filed with the justice their appeal bond. In the county court, on motion of appellees, the appeal was dismissed upon the ground that the appeal bond had not been filed in due time. *Held*error. If an appeal bond in justice’s court be filed within ten day after an order overruling a motion for new trial, it is filed within the time required by law. [2 W. Con. Rep. §§ 49, 110.] This rule is applicable to art. 1639, R. S., as amended. [Gen. Laws 18th Leg. p. 91.] In this case the motion for new trial was not acted upon until more than ten days after the rendition of judgment had elapsed. An order *granting*a new trial *must*be made, if made at all, within ten days after the rendition of judgment. [R. S. arts. 1621, 1622; W. *&*W. Con. Rep. § 1310.] There is no time fixed by the statute within which such motion shall be disposed of by *overriding*the same, but- we are of the opinion that anv rul*132ing upon or disposition of a motion for a new trial must, to be valid, be made within ten days after the rendition of the judgment. It would be unreasonable to conclude that it was intended to limit the time within which such motion should be *granted,*without also limiting the *refusal*of it to the same time. We think the clear intent of the statute is, that after the expiration of ten days from the date of the judgment, no further action in the case can be had in the justice’s court. If a motion for a new trial has been filed within five days after the rendition of judgment, but no action has been had thereon within ten days after the rendition of judgment, such motion would be considered as overruled on the tenth day after the date of the judgment, and a party would in such case have ten days thereafter within which to file his appeal bond. In this case, the order overruling the motion for a new trial, having been made after the lapse of ten days from the date of the judgment, was a nullity, and appellant had ten days from December *5,*1884, the last day upon which the motion could legally have been disposed of, to file his appeal bond, and, having filed the same within said ten days, it was filed in due time, and the appeal should not have been dismissed.

February 10, 1886.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Tex. & Pac. R’y Co. v. O. P. Watson.

(No. 5136.)

May 18, 1887.

Appeal from Eastland County.

T. H. Conner, counsel for appellant.

J. T. Hammons, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 302. *Continuance; first application for must be granted, when.*Appellant’s application for a continuance was a first one, and it contained every requisite of the statute. The court erred in not granting it. When a first application for a continuance is in strict compliance with the statute, the court has no discretion in the matter, but must continue the cause. [Cleveland v. Cole, 65 Tex. 402.]

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit  32.1

                        CERTIFICATIONS  UNDER  SECTION  906


     Pursuant  to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and  (b)  of  section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Force Protection Corporation, a Colorado corporation
(the  "Company"),  does  hereby  certify,  to  such  officer's  knowledge, that:

    The  Annual  Report for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-KSB")
of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form
10-KSB  fairly  presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition and
results  of  operations  of  the  Company.

    Dated:  May 04,  2004

                           /s/  Michael Watts
                           --------------------
                           Michael Watts,  Chief  Executive  Officer


    Dated:  May 04,  2004
                           /s/  Thomas Thebes
                           -----------------
                          Thomas Thebes,   Chief  Financial  Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

JOSE LUIS BERNAL-ARIAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10013

D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00072-RCJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert C. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 15, 2017** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Jose Luis Bernal-Arias appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(i), and 846. We dismiss.

FILED

NOV 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Bernal-Arias challenges the district court’s finding that he was not safety

valve eligible, as well as the district court’s decision to apply a two-level

enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or

distributing a controlled substance. The government contends that the appeal is

barred by an appeal waiver in the parties’ plea agreement. We review de novo

whether the appeal is barred by a waiver. See United States v. Arias-Espinosa, 704

F.3d 616, 618 (9th Cir. 2012).

The appeal waiver in the parties’ plea agreement covers Bernal-Arias’s

claims, and the record reflects that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. See

United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). Nonetheless, BernalArias argues that the district court vitiated the written waiver at sentencing. This

claim fails because the court’s statement regarding Bernal-Arias’s right to appeal

was qualified. See Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d at 618-20. We also reject BernalArias’s call to ignore the appeal waiver to prevent a “miscarriage of justice.” Even

assuming this court recognized such an exception to the enforceability of an appeal

waiver, it does not apply here.

DISMISSED. 

2 17-10013
##### 



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
  
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 17, 2007 (the Report), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company for the periods presented therein.
  /s/   ANDREW HAMERAndrew HamerVice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ernest R. JONES.

No. 2011-K-2781.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 2012.

In re Jones, Ernest R.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 07-3844; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KA-8.

Denied.
**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 McLeodUSAIncorporated (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Chris A. Davis, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Chris A. Davis             |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Name: Chris A. Davis           |
| Title: Chief Executive Officer |
| Date: August 9, 2005           |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retainedby the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
News United States Air Force
 ANG European theater security package arrives in BulgariaPublished May 11, 2015
                        
                        By Senior Airman Gustavo Castillo
                        
                        
                        52nd Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **SPANGDAHLEM AIR BASE, Germany (AFNS) --**
                The U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa commander spoke to U.S. and Bulgarian Airmen and local community leaders about the Air Force's first European theater security package (TSP) of F-15C Eagles deployed to Graf Ignatievo Air Base, near Plovdiv, Bulgaria, May 11.
Gen. Frank Gorenc, the USAFE-AFAFRICA commander, welcomed the approximately 200 Airmen of the 159th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron to Europe.
"These 200 Airmen and 12 F-15s led by the Florida National Guard and comprised of Airmen and equipment from several National Guard units provide a strategic symbol as they represent the United States' commitment to European security and stability," Gorenc said.
The squadron will fly with NATO allies and support Operation Atlantic Resolve. OAR is a demonstration of U.S. European Command and USAFE-AFAFRICA's continued commitment to the collective security of Europe and dedication to the enduring peace and stability in the region.
"The mission of the Bulgarian Air Force is to guard and protect the sovereignty of Bulgarian airspace," Gorenc said. "The men and women of this TSP look forward to working with you to further our collective defense."
The U.S. Air Force's forward presence in Europe, augmented by a rotational force like the TSP, allows us to work with our allies to develop and improve ready air forces capable of maintaining regional security," Gorenc explained.
While this is the first time the ANG has deployed to Europe as a TSP, these types of deployments are not new to the Air Force. Fighter squadrons have been deploying like this to the Pacific since 2004.
"We know how much effort and resources it takes to be deployed here," said Maj. Gen. Rumen Radev, the Bulgarian Air Force commander. "I want to thank the U.S. Air Force command represented by Gen. Gorenc, because you are here again and our joint training continues. If the Bulgarian Air Force is an inseparable part from the alliance today, it is to a great extent because of these trainings."
Florida ANG’s 125th Fighter Wing leads the first ANG theater security package to deploy in support of OAR. The aircraft and Airmen are based out of units in Florida, Oregon, California, Massachusetts and various bases throughout Europe. Regardless of their origin, together, they make up the 159th EFS.Spangdahlem AB 



Germany 



USAFE 



F-15 Eagle 



F-15 



TSP 



Florida National Guard 



ANG 



Bulgaria 



European Theater Security Package Related Links
        FRANK GORENC
                                Sept. 30, 2005
                                Commander, U.S. Air Forces in Europe; Commander, U.S. Air Forces Africa, Commander, NATO Allied Air Command and Director, Joint Air Power Competence Centre
News United States Air Force
 New Autism Care Demonstration updatesPublished Oct. 5, 2015
                        
                        By FALLS CHURCH, Va. (AFNS)
                        
                        
                        TRICARE.mil Staff, Communications Division, Defense Health Agency
                
                In an effort to continually improve benefits, the Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration (ACD) was recently updated to reduce the potential financial burden of applied behavior analysis (ABA) services for non-active-duty families.
As of Oct. 1, all ACD cost-shares will match TRICARE Prime and Standard cost-shares for all ABA services provided by authorized ABA supervisors, assistant behavior analysts and behavior technicians. This change will allow cost-shares to contribute to the annual catastrophic cap for families and eliminates the 10 percent cost-share for assistant behavior analyst and behavior technician services, also known as “tiered” services, significantly reducing the potential financial burden of ABA services for non-active-duty families.
Revisions were also made to enhance the quality and safety of ABA services. All ABA providers will become trained in basic life support by Dec. 31, 2015. Many beneficiaries diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) typically have other medical conditions, and in the rare event that basic life support would be needed to save a life, all ABA providers will be trained. All behavior technicians are also now required to obtain certification from an accredited organization. Behavioral technicians certification ensures these providers are consistently well-trained in ABA services.
The TRICARE ACD covers all TRICARE eligible beneficiaries diagnosed with ASD under a single benefit. There are currently almost 13,000 beneficiaries receiving ABA through the ACD which runs through Dec. 31, 2018.
For more information about the changes to this benefit, visit the ACD page on the TRICARE website.AF family 



autism 



TRICARE
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  Trans  Energy,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
F. Woodburn , Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of operations of the
     Company.


/s/   WILLIAM F. WOODBURN
----------------------------------
William F. Woodburn
Principal Accounting Officer
August 18, 2004

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1265 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1265

 To amend the Small Business Act to authorize the Administrator of the 
  Small Business Administration to award contracts to small business 
 concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans under the 
                         section 8(a) program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2007

Mr. Buyer (for himself and Mr. Boozman) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Small Business Act to authorize the Administrator of the 
  Small Business Administration to award contracts to small business 
 concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans under the 
                         section 8(a) program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small 
Business Equity Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO AWARD CONTRACTS UNDER 8(A) PROGRAM TO SMALL 
              BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY SERVICE-
              DISABLED VETERANS.

    Section 8 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(o) Small Business Concerns Owned and Controlled by Service-
Disabled Veterans.--
            ``(1) Award of contracts.--The Administrator may award a 
        contract under subsection (a) to a small business concern owned 
        and controlled by service-disabled veterans on the same basis 
        as a contract awarded under that subsection to a socially and 
        economically disadvantaged small business concern.
            ``(2) Annual certification required.--The Administrator 
        shall require each small business concern owned and controlled 
        by service-disabled veterans that is a Program Participant 
        under section 7(j)(15) or that is awarded a contract under 
        subsection (a) to certify, on an annual basis, that such 
        concern is a small business concern owned and controlled by 
        service-disabled veterans within the meaning of section 3(q).
            ``(3) Disadvantaged owner.--For purposes of this section, 
        in the case of a small business concern owned and controlled by 
        service-disabled veterans, the term `disadvantaged owner' means 
        an owner who is a service-disabled veteran.''.
                                 <all>
```