alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 DOD awards TRICARE-managed care support contractsPublished July 25, 2016
                        
                        By Military Health System Communications Office, Defense Health Agency
                **FALLS CHURCH, Va. (AFNS) --**
                The Defense Department announced on July 22 that the next generation of TRICARE-managed care support contracts were awarded. 
The new contracts, which go into effect nine months after the award, establish two TRICARE regions in the United States: East and West, instead of the current three. The East Region contract will go to Humana Government Business Inc., in Louisville, Kentucky. In the West Region, the new managed care contractor will be Health Net Federal Services LLC, in Rancho Cordova, California. These contracts are replacing current arrangements under which health care is provided to eligible members of the uniformed services, retirees and their families.
"I am pleased that our new TRICARE contracts are focused on enhancing the experience of care for our service members, retirees and their families,” said Karen S. Guice, the acting assistant secretary of defense for health affairs. 
The new contracts will continue to provide for the delivery of health care, customer service, claims processing and other administrative services to the estimated 9.4 million TRICARE beneficiaries.  The new contracts do not change the TRICARE benefit and offer all the same TRICARE options.
“TRICARE is moving into a new era, making use of the lessons learned in the first three contract phases,” said Vice Admiral Raquel C. Bono, the director of the Defense Health Agency. “Defense Department leadership and the incumbent managed care support contractors are dedicated to managing a smooth transition to the new managed care support contractors, with minimum disruption to our beneficiaries.”
The new contracts include a requirement to improve integration between military hospitals and the civilian components of TRICARE. They also call for an upgraded electronic referral process to reduce wait times for beneficiaries who need specialty care.
After the nine-month transition period from the current contracts to the new ones, military hospitals and clinics will have real-time access to medical management data. This increased ability to share data will improve both patient care coordination and access to care. Through improved visibility of data, the Military Health System will be able to standardize care between civilian and military facilities, which promises both better care and greater patient safety.
The Defense Health Agency will keep TRICARE beneficiaries informed of coming changes during the transition period. Those interested in the progress can visit the TRICARE website for more details.TRICARE 



contract 



DOD 



benefits
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 185 (Friday, September 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58364-58365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24035]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board


Foreign-Trade Zone 114--Peoria, IL Site Renumbering Notice

    Foreign-Trade Zone 114 was approved by the FTZ Board on December 
21, 1984 (Board Order 288, 50 FR 1606, 1/11/1985) and currently 
consists of seven ``sites'' totaling 988 acres in the Peoria, Illinois, 
area. The current update does not alter the physical boundaries that 
have previously been approved, but instead involves an administrative 
renumbering that separates certain non-contiguous sites for record-
keeping purposes.
    Under this revision, the site list for FTZ 114 will be as follows: 
Site 1 (88 acres) located at 1925 Darst Street, Peoria; Site 2 (150 
acres) located at 603 North Main Street, East Peoria; Site 4 (2 acres) 
located at 5703 West Smithville Road, Bartonville; Site 5 (37 acres) 
located at 278 Koch Street, Pekin; Site 6 (17 acres) located at 6409 
West Smithville Road, Bartonville; Site 7 (360 acres) located at the 
former Chanute Air Force Base, 601 S. Century Boulevard, Rantoul; Site 
8 (333 acres) located at 659 Knox Road 1440N (U.S. 150 East and I-74), 
Galesburg; and, Site 9 (145,000 sq. ft.) located at 2314 E. Wilkins 
Drive, Mossville.
    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#084d646172696a6d7c60265f60617c6d656966487c7a696c6d266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e7a28b8e9d868582938fc9b08f8e93828a8689a79395868382c9808891">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-0473.


[[Page 58365]]


    Dated: September 17, 2010.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24035 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
News United States Air Force
 F-15 maintainers keep exercise going in PortugalPublished March 1, 2016
                        
                        By Senior Airman Dawn Weber
                        
                        
                        48th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **BEJA AIR BASE, Portugal (AFNS) --**
                The 493rd Aircraft Maintenance Unit is playing a major role to keep their F-15C and D Eagles flying high during exercise Real Thaw, a Portuguese-led, large joint and combined forces exercise that trains participating forces on a vast range of battlefield mission sets.Maintenance Airmen are demonstrating their expertise to an international audience working with numerous NATO allies during Real Thaw.During the two-week exercise, maintainers are working day and night to keep the 493rd Fighter Squadron aircraft ready for takeoff."The Airmen in our unit are hard-working and highly devoted to ensuring our aircraft are mission capable," said 2nd Lt. Connor Maggs, the 493rd AMU assistant officer in charge. "As a part of leadership, we were very confident in their ability to maintain and equip the aircraft, and to foster relations with NATO allies because their professionalism and dedication is what gets the mission here, at Real Thaw, done."It hasn't been an easy task for the more than 60 maintainers."Working away from home station can be difficult," said Senior Airman Russell Habenicht, 493rd AMU avionics specialist. "We are working with limited manpower during exercise Real Thaw. Using the wingman concept is very important here, keeping each other in check is a priority."Preparation was key in order to success. The maintenance team had to ensure they brought not only the right equipment, but also enough of it. Attention to detail is required all the way down to the nuts and bolts.During a TDY or deployment, maintainers prove they are quick to adapt. Their priority is to maintain the jets in the most proficient way possible."Adaptation is a very important characteristic to have as a maintainer," said Staff Sgt. Del Williams, a 493rd AMU crew chief. "In a TDY location like Portugal, when something goes wrong, we want to figure out the problem as quickly and proficiently as possible."At Real Thaw, 493rd AMU maintainers are also learning to work with Portuguese and allied forces."Working with our NATO partners is a good career experience," Williams said. "We get to watch how the Portuguese and other allies conduct business, and, in return, they learn our way of maintenance."Portugal 



USAFE 



F-15 Eagle 



F-15 



NATO 



joint 



training 



exercise 



RAF Lakenheath
#### St. Louis, I. M. & S. R’y Co. v. Henry Turner.

(No. 2605.)

November 9, 1887.

Appeal from Bowie County.

Todd & .Hudgins, counsel for appellant.

Horace Vaughan, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 341. *Appeal bond from justice’s court; file-markon, may be shoivn to be false, when; case stated.*Appellee recovered a judgment against appellant in justice’s court for $200 and costs on March 21, 18S7. Appellant gave notice of appeal to the county court, and presented an appeal bond to the justice, who indorsed thereon: *“*Filed and approved March 31, 1887.” In the county court appellee moved to dismiss said appeal, alleging that said appeal bond was not in fact filed or deposited with said justice until April 1, 1887, more than ten days after the rendition of said judgment, and that said file-mark upon said bond was untrue and fraudulently made. Said motion was verified by the affidavit of appellee’s counsel, and upon a hearing of said motion it was conclusively sustained by proof, and the court dismissed the appeal. *Held,*it was competent to contradict by parol testimony the file-mark indorsed upon the appeal bond, it being alleged that said file-mark was fraudulently made. It was fraud in law for the justice to antedate said file-mark, thereby making it appear that said bond had been received and filed by him within the time prescribed by law, when in fact it had not been received by him, and was not in his possession, either actual or constructive, until after the expiration of said time. If said bond had been in possession, either actual or constructive, of said justice within said time, its validity 'would not have been affected, although it was not marked filed until after the expiration of said time. [3 App. C. C. §§ 94, 287.] It was not error to dismiss said appeal.

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Written Statement
Pursuant To
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 The undersigned, Steven G. Murdock, the Chief Executive Officer of Meade
Instruments Corp. (the Company), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, hereby
certifies that: (i) the Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 29, 2004 of the
Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: May 27, 2005 By: /s/ Steven G. Murdock This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Security Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Department of the United States Air Force LogoBiography
                  United States Air Force060612-F-JZ507-037.JPG
            DR. HAROLD BROWN**Served as secretary of the Air Force from Oct. 1, 1965 to Feb. 14, 1969.**
Harold Brown was the eighth secretary of the Air Force. 
He was born in New York City in 1927. He received a bachelor's degree in 1945, a master's degree in 1946, and a doctor's degree in physics in 1949, all from Columbia University. In 1964 he was awarded an honorary degree of doctor of engineering by Stevens Institute of Technology. In 1967, he was elected a member of the National Academy of Engineering. 
During the period 1947 to 1952, Brown lectured in physics and was a member of the scientific staff at Columbia University; lectured in physics at Stevens Institute of Technology; and spent a year in post-doctoral research at Columbia. He then joined the University of California Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley as research scientist in 1950. 
In 1952, Brown became a staff member when the Livermore, Calif., site of the E.O. Lawrence Radiation Laboratory was established. In July 1960, he became Director of the laboratory at Livermore. 
From 1956 to 1957, Brown was a consultant to the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board; and he was a member of the Board from 1958 to 1961. From 1956 to 1958, he also was a member of the Polaris Steering Committee. 
From November 1958 to February 1959, Brown was Senior Scientific Advisor to the U.S. Delegation to the Conference on Discontinuance of Nuclear Weapons Tests. From 1958 to 1961, he was a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Ballistic Missiles to the Secretary of Defense. 
In 1961, Brown was named one of the Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Year by the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce and also received the Navy Distinguished Civilian Service Award. In 1963, he was awarded the Columbia University Medal of Excellence. 
Brown was a consultant to several panels of the President's Science Advisory Committee, from 1958 to 1960, and was appointed a member of the Committee in 1961. 
He had served previously as Director of Defense Research and Engineering for the Department of Defense from May 3, 1961 to Sept. 30, 1965. 
His research interests included nuclear explosive design, applications of nuclear explosives to military and non-military purposes, controlled release of thermonuclear energy, nuclear reactors-of advanced design and weapon systems of numerous kinds. He also has conducted research and analysis in the problems of detecting nuclear explosions in various environments, and has participated in a number of studies in the area of arms limitation and control.Department of the Air Force Logo
#### Emily McDONALD, Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and CMS Mechanical, Appellees.

No. 1D11-0823.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 13, 2011.

Emily McDonald, pro se, Appellant.

Louis A. Gutierrez, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Emily McDonald appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming an appeals referee’s decision finding her to be disqualified from the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits. In a motion to relinquish jurisdiction, the Unemployment Appeals Commission forthrightly acknowledges that the proceedings before the referee did not fully comport with the requirements of an administrative rule governing the matter. The Commission therefore requests that the court relinquish jurisdiction to it for purposes of issuing an order remanding the case to the referee for further proceedings. In accordance with this request, the final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission being appealed herein is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BENTON, C.J., HAWKES and CLARK, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Frank GEISLER.

No. 2010-OK-1833.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 2011.

In re Geisler, Frank; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial *311Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 5-02-11; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0636.

Denied.
#### St. Louis, Ark. & Tex. R’y Co. v. S. P. Tucker.

(No. 2577.)

Appeal from Smith County.

Herndon, Cain & Garrison, counsel for appellant.

John M. Duncan, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 322. *Free railroad pass; cannot be revoked, when; case stated.*An agent of appellant company issued to appellee Tucker a pass to travel on appellant’s railway from Tyler to Cookeville, appellee agreeing to become a laborer for appellant at the latter place. Appellee boarded appellant’s train at Tyler to go to Cookeville, taking his baggage — a valise and its contents — upon the train with him. When the train had proceeded between four and six hundred yards from the depot at Tyler appellee presented said pass to the conductor, who refused to permit him to travel upon it, and stopped the train and put him off, his valise being left upon the train, and which he never recovered. At the time the conductor refused to recognize said pass he informed appellee that it was not valid. It appears that a short time before this occurrence, but prior to the issuance of said pass, an order had been promulgated by appellant company instructing its agents and conductors to refuse to recognize as valid such passes as that held by appellee; but it does not appear that appellee had any knowledge of such order when he went upon the train, but that on the contrary he then believed said pass to. be valid. It further appeared that such passes, up to that time, had been rec*391ognized as valid by the conductors and agents of appellant. Appellee brought this suit to recover damages by reason of the premises stated, and recovered judgment for $130 and costs. *Held:*Conceding that the pass was invalid at the time it was presented to the conductor, appellee had no notice of its invalidity when he went upon the train, but believed, and had the right to believe, that it was valid, it having been issued to him by an agent of the company under a special contract. Such being the case, appellant could not rightfully and lawfully eject him from its train, but was bound to carry him to Cooke-ville. Conceding that said pass was a free pass, issued without value paid therefor, it could not be revoked by the company at any time and under any circumstances. Where, as in this case, a party has been induced by an agent of the company to believe that the pass issued to him is valid, and he goes upon the train believing it to be valid, it would be unjust to exonerate the company from liability for damages resulting directly from a refusal to recognize such pass as valid. Appellant, under such circumstances, was estopped from denying the validity of the pass.

November 26, 1887.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Felton BERNARD.

No. 2012-KD-0331.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 2012.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District *1249Court Div. H, No. 469-092; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2012-K-0152.

Denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

The following is a complete list of all operating subsidiaries of Meade
Instruments Corp. as of February 28, 2005:

      1)    Simmons Outdoor Corp., a Delaware corporation

      2)    Coronado Instruments, Inc., a California corporation

      3)    Meade Instruments Verwaltungs GmbH, organized under the laws of
            Germany

      4)    Meade Instruments Europe GmbH and Co. KG, organized under the laws
            of Germany

      5)    Meade Instruments Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V., organized under the
            laws of Mexico

      6)    Meade Instruments (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., organized under the laws of
            the People's Republic of China

In addition the Company has various other subsidiaries that act as holding and
other non-operating companies.
#### GABRIEL KENNETH SIMMONS *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 23044)

Lavery, C. J., and Bishop and Hennessy, Js.

Submitted on briefs May 2

officially released May 20, 2003

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of CityCenter Holdings, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2012 as provided on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Baldwin, President and Chief Executive Officer of Project CC, LLC, managing Member of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /S/ ROBERT H. BALDWIN                                                                                   | March 14, 2013 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|
| Robert   H. Baldwin                                                                                     |                |
| President and Chief Executive Officer of Project   CC, LLC, managing Member of CityCenter Holdings, LLC |                |

 

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ISAAC GILMORE,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-968

[November 24, 2021]

Administrative appeal from the Department of Business and 

Professional Regulation; L.T. Case No. 2020-022885 CILB.

Isaac Gilmore, Hollywood, pro se.

Austin Kirtley, Assistant General Counsel, Unlicensed Activity, 

Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Tallahassee, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1

                  ACTIVE SUBSIDIARIES OF IONA TECHNOLOGIES PLC

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                      SUBSIDIARY                   COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION
      -----------------------------------------    ------------------------
<S>                                                <C>
      IONA Technologies, Inc.                      US
      IONA Technologies Pty. Limited               Australia
      IONA Technologies Finance                    Cayman Islands
      IONA Technologies China Limited              China
      IONA Technologies GmbH                       Germany
      IONA Technologies UK Limited                 UK
      IONA Technologies Sarl                       France
      IONA Technologies Singapore                  Singapore
      IONA Technologies Japan                      Japan
      IONA Technologies Italia Srl                 Italy
      IONA Technologies (Suisse) SA                Switzerland
      IONA Technologies (Belgium) SA               Belgium
      IONA Technologies Netherlands BV             The Netherlands
      IONA Technologies Spain, S.L                 Spain
      IONA Technologies Korea Limited              Korea
      IONA Research (Ireland) Limited              Ireland
      Genesis Development Corporation              US
      Object-Oriented Concepts, Inc.               US
      Object-Oriented Concepts, Inc.               Canada
      Object-Oriented Concepts Gmbh                Germany
      Netfish Technologies, Inc.                   US
      IONA Government Technologies, Inc.           US
      Orbix Limited                                Ireland
</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

IPICOM, Inc. dba IPITEK ) 

) 

Under Contract Nos. DAAB07-03-C-L418 ) 

F33615-03-C-5800 ) 

FA 7046-05-C-0002 ) 

W911NF-06-C-OO14 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59656 

Nancy 0. Dix, Esq. 

DLA Piper LLP 

San Diego, CA 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Carol L. Matsunaga, Esq. 

Senior Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Carson, CA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 19 May 2015 

~~:_ Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59656, Appeal ofIPICOM, Inc. dba 

!PITEK, rendered in conformance with the Boards Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Respondent

v.

LAVON DEWAYNE CHISLEY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 687 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 31st day of January, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.