alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 US, South Korea strengthen bonds at exercise Buddy WingPublished Feb. 5, 2015
                        
                        By Senior Airman Katrina Heikkinen
                        
                        
                        8th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **DAEGU AIR BASE, South Korea (AFNS) --**
                Airmen from the 8th Fighter Wing sharpened combat skills and gained insight from their South Korean air force counterparts during exercise Buddy Wing 15-2 Feb. 3-6, at Daegu Air Base, South Korea.
During this iteration of Buddy Wing, 8th FW Airmen deployed to Daegu to train alongside Airmen of the 11th FW, learning how to operate as one force with dissimilar fighter aircraft as they integrated mission planning, briefing, flying and debriefing together.
"This has been a really great experience for me. This exercise is not like Max Thunder or Red Flag -- it's much smaller so we've been able to have much more face-to-face interactions; which has allowed us to focus more on the relationships between USAF and ROKAF (Republic of Korea air force)," said Capt. Won Ho Lim, a 102nd Fighter Squadron F-15K Slam Eagle pilot with the South Korean air force.
Throughout the four-day exercise, pilots exchanged tactics and procedures with their South Korean counterparts.
"This exercise was unique because we came to a ROKAF base and operated at their facilities," said Maj. Dean Laansma, the 80th FS assistant director of operations and Buddy Wing detachment commander. "It was advantageous to see how they ran their operations as we assimilated ourselves to them and increased our ability to understand and work with each other." 
Buddy Wing exercises ensure that U.S. and South Korean airmen continuously enhance combat capabilities, so if the need arises, they are ready to fight as a combined force.Daegu AB 



PACAF 



Kunsan AB 



joint 



exercise 



South Korea 



8th Fighter Wing
#### In re Edwin M. SHORTY, Jr.

No. 2011-B-1278.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 29, 2011.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.*

|TThe Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent allowed a legal matter to prescribe and then improperly settled his malpractice liability without first advising the client in writing to seek independent counsel. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Edwin M. Shorty, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 28421, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. This suspension shall be deferred in its entirety, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Petition for Consent Discipline.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

*

 Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.
News United States Air Force
 Hold self to a higher standard in uniformPublished Aug. 17, 2013
                        
                        By Lt. Col. Lynn Marshall
                        
                        
                        349th Mission Support Group
                **TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) --**
                The other day as I was driving home from base, I noticed an individual driving erratically, speeding and running red lights -- just an ordinary California driver, right? 
Sadly, I could clearly see that this individual was wearing an Air Force uniform. This incident made me contemplate a few questions on my continued drive home. 
What does it mean to wear the United States Air Force uniform? Are your actions still an individual acting alone or have you transformed yourself into a representation of the entire military community? 
The idea of disparaging or degrading the military and the uniform angers me as it should everyone who has been given the opportunity to wear one. 
The uniform of the U.S. Air Force represents many honorable things. It stands for hope, peace, strength, discipline, perseverance, protection and, most of all, pride-pride in our country, heritage, flag and ourselves. 
Your uniform identifies you as a member of the United States military. All military members are members of a uniformed service where discipline is judged, in part, by the manner in which they act in that uniform. Therefore, it is vital to uphold the high standards of discipline and order that are the hallmark of this great organization. 
If a service member is in uniform when he or she gets drunk, shows too much public display of affection or uses profanity in public, that person is acting as a poor ambassador for the military. 
The utmost confidence has been given to us by the American people, thus, we should hold and carry ourselves to a higher standard and wear the uniform with admiration.
We have earned the right to wear our military uniforms and we should be extremely proud to wear them. 
So remember wear it with pride, you are representing the country that has given you the opportunity to serve it.ambassador 



standards 



uniform
#### Roberta BROUSSARD v. STINE LUMBER COMPANY.

No. 2012-C-0451.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 2012.

In re Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation, District No. 4, No. 07-194; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-168.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,356,667
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    154,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,674,762
<PP&E>                                         547,140
<DEPRECIATION>                                 371,130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,368,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          355,027
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       132,825
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,880,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,368,820
<SALES>                                         64,505
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,064,505
<CGS>                                           36,198
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  903,936
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 713
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                178,558
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            178,558
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   178,558
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50948

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN JOSE MOLINA-BARRAZA, also 

known as Juan Quesada,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-00-CR-797-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 15, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Jose Molina-Barraza appeals his sentence following his

guilty plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Molina argues that his sentence

should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under 8

U.S.C. § 1326(a). Molina acknowledges that his argument is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224

(1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court

review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 
No. 00-50948

- 2 -

Molina’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, 523

U.S. at 235. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### John Adamson and Wife v. H. P. Shiel.

(No. 3218.)

Appeal from Tarrant County.

E. W. Temple, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Davidson, J.

§ 2 94. *Charge of the court; must he predicated on evidence; wife’s separate property; husband cannot hind hy his contract.*This was a suit brought by Shiel against Adamson and wife to recover a sum of money due him for plastering a dwelling-house, the separate property of one of the appellants, who is the wife of her co-appellant. The petition alleges that one Owen J. Cook was the agent of Mrs. Adamson, and that she gave him express authority to employ some one to plaster said dwelling-house, and that he employed appellee, Shiel. In the second count of his petition plaintiff alleges that, after he had completed the plastering of the dwelling-house, John Adamson, the husband, who was managing and controlling the separate property of his wife, agreed and promised that he would pay appellee the contract price for plastering said house. The answer was general denial, and the further plea that Cook was himself an independent contractor, who had taken the contract to build and complete said house; that he was not the agent of the *508defendants to employ other parties to aid and assist or to do the work for him. The trial resulted in a verdict for Shiel against both the appellants, in the sum of $469.30. In paragraph. 2 of the court’s charge the jury were instructed that “if you believe from the evidence that Owen J. Oook, at the time he made the contract with plaintiff for the plastering of the house of defendant, had authority from defendants, or either of them, to employ plaintiff, and to make the contract for them, and to bind the defendants to pay for the same, then it will be. your duty to find for the plaintiff against both defendants,” etc. Again, the court instructed the jury: “ If you find against Mrs. Adamson at all, you must do so upon proposition 2 of this charge.” The charge is erroneous, because there is no evidence upon which to predicate the same. There is not a particle of evidence that either of the parties ever conferred the authority upon Oook, as their agent, to employ plaintiff, or any one else, to aid him in the completion of the house, or any portion of it. Furthermore, the proposition was erroneous as a proposition of law. Adamson, the husband, could not authorize Cook to employ the plaintiff to plaster the house, the separate property of his wife, and thereby' bind her and her separate property, unless the same was done with her knowledge, and by her authority and consent. [Magee v. White, 23 Tex. 180; Haynes v. Stovall, id. 625; Harris v. Williams, 44 Tex. 124; Warren v. Smith, id. 245.] The evidence in this case shows that appellants had paid to Owen J. Oook, the original contractor, who undertook to build and complete the said house for them, the full.amount of the contract price for the entire house after it had been completed by him. For the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

February *17,*1892.

Beversed and remanded.
#### NANCY LEWIS *v.*STATE OF CONNECTICUT

(AC 23536)

Schaller, West and Dupont, Js.

Submitted on briefs May 2

officially released May 20, 2003

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1



NEWS RELEASE



For further information contact:



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Kerry J. Chauvin        |  | Joseph Duke Gallagher
|Chief Executive Officer |  | Chief Financial Officer
|985.872.2100            |  | 985.872.2100           

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JANUARY 20, 2006



GULF ISLAND FABRICATION, INC.

TO ANNOUNCE EARNINGS RESULTS

AND QUARTERLY CONFERENCE CALL



Houma, LA  (BUSINESS WIRE)  January 20, 2006Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. (NASDAQ: GIFI), will announce 2005 fourth quarter
earnings on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 8:00 a.m. Central Time (9:00 a.m. Eastern Time).



The management of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. will hold a conference call on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. Central Time (10:00 a.m. Eastern Time) to discuss the Companys financial results for
the quarter ended December 31, 2005.



The
call is accessible by webcast through CCBN and by dialing the following:



|         |  |                   
|-------- |  | ------------------
|Dial In: |  | 1.800.946.0741    
|         |  |                   
|Webcast: |  | www.gulfisland.com



A
digital rebroadcast of the call is available two hours after the call and ending February 10, 2006 by dialing:



|                 |  |               
|---------------- |  | --------------
|Phone Number:    |  | 1.888.203.1112
|                 |  |               
|Replay Passcode: |  | 2962496       



Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc., based
in Houma, Louisiana, is a leading fabricator of offshore drilling and production platforms, offshore living quarters and other specialized structures used in the development and production of offshore oil and gas reserves. The Company also offers
offshore interconnect pipe hook-up, inshore marine construction, manufacture and repair of pressure vessels, and steel warehousing and sales.
#### KAREN A. PAGE *v.*JAY A. PAGE

(AC 23004)

Lavery, C. J., and DiPentima and Dupont, Js.

Argued June 2

officially released July 1, 2003

*Eugene P. Falco,*for the appellant (defendant).

*James Wu,*with whom was *Julie M. Porzio,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a postjudgment order in a dissolution of marriage action, the parties agree that paragraph twenty-seven of their written separation agreement, incorporated by reference into the decree of dissolution, is ambiguous. The ambiguity centers around the words “ [t]he Husband shall immediately transfer to the Wife by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or nontaxable rollover a one-half interest in the following: GE Savings and Security 401 (k) Plan in the approximate amount of $945,000 . . . .”

The interpretation of the contract in this case hinges on the intent of the parties. The plaintiff wife argues that she is entitled to one-half of the cash value of the stock as of the date of dissolution, and the defendant *749husband argues that his former wife is entitled only to one-half of the number of shares of stock in the plan as of the date of dissolution.1

The intent of the parties to a contract is determined from the language used as interpreted in light of the circumstances and in light of the purpose which the parties sought to accomplish. *Barnard*v. *Barnard,*214 Conn. 99, 109-10, 570 A.2d 690 (1990).

The trial court, without an evidentiary hearing, ordered the defendant “to transfer” his interest “based on the values [of the assets] determined as of the sixtieth day from August 29, 2000,” which was the date of the parties’ dissolution.” Without an evidentiary hearing, and, therefore, without any basis for finding the necessary subsidiary facts to determine whether the plaintiffs interpretation or the defendant’s interpretation of the words “a one-half interest” should prevail, we remand the case for an evidentiary hearing.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing to establish the intent of the parties as to the distribution provided for in their written separation agreement.

1

 The value of the stock has declined significantly since the date of dissolution.
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# Knowledge Management Centers roll out Air Force-wide

              - Published  May 5, 2014
              -                             By Senior Airman Jamie Jaggers                                                    
              - Air Force Public Affairs Agency Operating Location-P

**WASHINGTON (AFNS) --  **
The Air Force revamped the Knowledge Management career-field, aiming to make its Airmen into some of the service’s top innovators working in newly established KM centers Air-Force-wide. 

 

The KM career-field split, announced earlier this year, moved 80 percent of its Airmen to the new Administration Air Force Specialty Code 3A1X1. Approximately 20 percent of Airmen currently assigned to the Knowledge Management AFSC 3D0X1 will remain; becoming a more specific, technically-honed specialty. 

 

According to Chief Master Sergeant Robert Jackson, Knowledge Management career field manager, KM will undergo a significant technical training ramp-up to meet this challenge.  They employ a process improvement mindset, analyze mission requirements and recommend solutions.  They are the consultants, trainers and facilitators to connect people to the information they need. 

 

“The idea is to help Airmen avoid searching through mountains of digital data to find what they're looking for,” said Jackson.  “The real goal is capturing and reusing the wisdom, experience and lessons we learn over time.”

 

 Last year the Secretary of the Air Force’s Chief Information Officer Lt. Gen. Michael Basla sponsored a pilot program to evaluate knowledge management outreach in 15 organizations spanning the Air Force and Air National Guard, yielding promising results. 

 

“The pilot proved that real innovation can happen when we connect process improvement and technology,” Basla said.  “We are not just applying new technology to old processes, but rather looking to improve the process itself, harnessing our Airmen’s intellectual capital to enhance mission effectiveness.”

 

One pilot knowledge management center at Dover Air Force Base, Del., reinvented a process for producing thousands of letters of appointment.  They used Microsoft SharePoint capabilities to produce an appointment letter management tool, cutting back on numerous hours and resources.  

 

“If this kind of improvement can be made with appointment letters, imagine what is possible with our critical mission and business systems,” Jackson said. “Airmen spend a lot of time on old paper-era processes, so KM can really help.” 

careercentersknowledge management
583 A.2d 306

#### JOSEPH FALCHETTA v. BERTRAM LEVINSTONE, M.D.

January 23, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 31.2



Certifications



I, Edward Escudero, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Petro Financial Corporation;



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;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



Date: May 13, 2004



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Edward Escudero                  
|(Edward Escudero)                    
|Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
No. 87-6474.

#### Gravatt *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 31.4



Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Michael Lacapria, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Esquire Financial Holdings, Inc.; 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: | April 30, 2020 | /s/ Michael Lacapria                              | 
|----- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | 
|      |                | Michael Lacapria                                  | 
|      |                | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |