alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Reserve C-17 wins best in show at UK air showPublished July 6, 2016
                        
                        By Maj. Wayne Capps
                        
                        
                        315th Airlift Wing Public Affairs
                **ROYAL NAVAL AIR STATION YEOVILTON, England (AFNS)  --**
                As jets thundered overhead, nearly 40,000 people crowded into the small Royal Navy station here in order to get a peek at aircraft from all over the world, including a C-17 Globmaster III from Joint Base Charleston, South Carolina.
Reservists from the 315th Airlift Wing, participated in the annual Yeovilton Air Day on July 2, and they were also awarded the show’s top prize, the best static display award.
“It felt good to be recognized by the British,” said Maj. Ed Sutton, the chief of tactics with the 315th Operations Support Squadron. “They were amazing and fantastic hosts who just wanted to see what we do.”
Proving to be the most popular display at the show; for most of the day, the wait time to get a tour of the C-17 flight deck at times was almost two hours. “We didn’t mind waiting,” said Donna Speckie, one of the air show attendees. “The C-17 is just massive and we don’t normally get to see these here in the U.K.”
For Capt. Mike Murphy, a traditional Reserve pilot with the 701st Airlift Squadron attending air shows is a common occurrence.
“I attend many aviation related events worldwide, but coming as a C-17 crewmember is all about diplomacy,” he said. “Several thousand people walked through our jet and the image that is imprinted in their minds is both of the magnitude of the C-17 and the crewmembers present. That image is invaluable.” he said.
For the C-17 crewmembers, there were multiple reasons for displaying their massive aircraft at the show. “For us, training is always important and that’s the real reason we were here,” Sutton said. “We were able to fly overseas sorties with a complicated load with over 16,000 pounds of shoring and some rolling stock vehicles.”Yeovilton Air Day 



Reserve 



mini C-17 



C-17 Globemaster III
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 24 - 00059 - CV ER PROPCO CRAIG, LLC , A PPELLANT V. YULANDA SHNELL CAMPBELL, ET AL. , APPELLEE S

On Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No . 111370 - E - CV , Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn , Presiding 

### April 17 , 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant, ER Propco Craig, LLC, appeals from the trial court’s order denying its motion to dismiss pursuant to section 74.351 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Now pending before this C ourt is Appellant’s motion seeking voluntary dismissal of the appeal. The C ourt finds that the motion complies with the requirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and that granting the motion will not prevent any party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. As no decision of the C ourt has been delivered to date , we grant the motion. The appeal is dismissed. Because the2

motion does not reflect an agreement of the parties concerning the payment of costs, costs will be taxed against Appellant. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.1(d). No motion for rehearing will be enterta ined and our mandate will issue forthwith. Per Curiam
#### G. M. Thompson & Co. v. R. E. Burnham.

(No. 2029, Op. Book No. 2, p. 301.)

Appeal from McLennan County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1058. *Garnishment; suit by, should be continued, when.*Appellants sued one Miller for debt, and in that suit obtained a writ of garnishment against appellee. Upon the tidal of the suit against Miller, judgment was rendered in favor of Miller, and appellants appealed to the court of appeals. The garnishment case against appellee was called for trial after the judgment in favor of Miller, and appellants moved the court to continue it until the decision of the court of appeals could be had in the case against Miller. The court refused this motion, and gave judgment that appellants take nothing by their garnishment, and that the garnishee go hence without day. *Held,*that this was error. The case should have been continued to abide the appeal. The plaintiffs’ right to recover against the garnishee depended upon their recovery against the defendant. That right was not determined by the judgment of the county court. It might be that upon appeal the judgment of the county court would be reversed and rendered, or upon another trial that judgment would go for the plaintiffs. In that case the plaintiffs would be entitled to the benefit of their writ of garnishment, if regularly sued out, etc. By the action of the court they would be deprived of this remedy which the law gives them. It would have been an idle thing to proceed in the trial, for unless the plaintiffs had recovered judgment against the defendant, they could have none against the garnishee. [Haggerty v. Ward, 25 Tex. 144.] The judgment of the county court *598was reversed, and the cause was remanded to abide the determination of. the principal case, to which this garnishment proceeding is simply auxiliary.

June 22, 1881.

Eeversed and remanded.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



March 25, 2002




Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen) has audited our financial statements for 2001.
Andersen has represented to us that:

   o  the audit was subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S.
      accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
      engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, and

   o  there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on
      the audit, and

   o  there was availability of national office consultation to conduct the
      relevant portions of the audit.

Sincerely,



Radiologix, Inc.
/s/ Sami S. Abbasi
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Floyd Lentellis GARRETT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-50609.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 24, 1998.

ORDER

HUG, Chief Judge.

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this ease be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion, *United States v. Garrett,*No. 96-50609, slip op. at 7553 (9th Cir. July 16,1998), is withdrawn.
News United States Air Force
 AF releases criteria for basing new F-16 training squadronsPublished Aug. 11, 2016
                        
                        By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force released basing criteria Aug. 11 that will be used to select candidate bases to establish additional permanent formal training units using F-16 Fighting Falcons from Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
The Air Force needs to increase fighter pilot production as part of the service’s efforts to address its fighter pilot shortage. However, establishing permanent FTUs takes time and the need for additional fighter pilot production is urgent.
Therefore, as an interim solution to increase fighter pilot training, the F-16s at Hill AFB will be temporarily moved to augment pilot training at up to two of the existing F-16 training locations: Luke AFB, Arizona; Holloman AFB, New Mexico; Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland's Kelly Field Annex, Texas; or Tucson Air National Guard Base, Arizona.
Site surveys will begin at these four locations next week to gather detailed information on operational requirements, infrastructure capacity, environmental considerations and cost.
The basing criteria for the long-term permanent solutions include mission requirements (weather, airspace and training range availability), capacity (sufficient hanger and ramp space, and facility considerations), environmental requirements, and cost factors.
The Air Force will evaluate all installations in the continental United States with an existing fighter mission and a runway that is greater than or equal to 8,000 feet against the approved criteria to identify candidate bases for the F-16s. 
After identifying candidate bases for the long-term permanent solution, Air Education and Training Command will conduct site surveys at each location as applicable. Site survey teams will assess each location against operational requirements, potential impacts to existing missions, infrastructure, environmental considerations, and manpower. They will also develop cost estimates to bed down the F-16s. 
Based on the results of these efforts, the Air Force plans to identify candidate installations for the F-16s later this year. The Air Force will use its environmental impact analysis process to analyze reasonable alternatives determined through the use of these criteria. 
“The Air Force is committed to a deliberate and open process to address relocating the F-16s,” said Jennifer A. Miller, the deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations. “As we progress through the basing process, we will share information so interested communities are aware of what to expect.”f-16 



Hill AFB 



ACC 



training 



Luke AFB 



Holloman AFB 



Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland 



ANG
ANNUAL REPORT
Chevy Chase Auto Receivables Trust 1997-1
$ 209,433,212 6.50% Auto Receivables Backed Certificates
For the Year Ended December 31, 1999




           PRINCIPAL    INTEREST      NET       NET        30 +      DELQ.
              DIST        DIST       LOSSES    LOSS %     DELQ.        %
          ____________ ___________ ___________ ________ ____________ _______
 Jan-1999   4,230,485     503,238     334,147    4.46%    6,985,312    7.77%
 Feb-1999   4,474,498     821,509     308,835    4.32%    6,332,630    7.38%
 Mar-1999   4,942,536     787,448     356,106    5.25%    5,426,330    6.67%
 Apr-1999   4,092,917     756,171     353,170    5.54%    4,771,243    6.24%
 May-1999   3,776,968     720,042     333,630    5.53%    4,416,008    6.10%
 Jun-1999   3,706,119     688,253     231,961    4.06%    4,324,076    6.31%
 Jul-1999   3,547,192     659,309      61,678    1.14%    4,154,101    6.41%
 Aug-1999   3,474,453     630,945     157,757    3.09%    4,144,597    6.77%
 Sep-1999   3,247,757     602,359     147,210    3.06%    4,289,003    7.42%
 Oct-1999   3,121,061     577,144      81,496    1.79%    4,280,022    7.85%
 Nov-1999   2,993,487     552,503     128,259    3.00%    4,382,467    8.53%
 Dec-1999   2,783,933     525,953     119,574    2.97%    4,452,262    9.21%
          ____________ ___________ ___________
   Totals  44,391,407   7,824,875   2,613,824

  **  The date represents the month of the Distribution date, the
      information is from activity of the previous month.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to****Section 302 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, G. Kenneth Burckhardt, certify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof McLeodUSA Incorporated;

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich 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 included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

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

 

a)                   Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)                  Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)                   Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.   The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)                   All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)                  Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
|   | August 9, 2004     |   | /s/ G. Kenneth Burckhardt |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | G. Kenneth Burckhardt   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
News United States Air Force
 Services continue strong recruiting through SeptemberPublished Nov. 10, 2014
                        
                        
                        DoD News, Defense Media Activity
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                All four active services met or exceeded their numerical accession goals for fiscal year 2014 through September, and each service also exceeded Department of Defense quality benchmarks for new recruits, DOD officials announced Nov. 10.
Here are the active-component recruiting numbers for fiscal 2014 through September: 
-- Army: 57,101 accessions, 100.2 percent of its goal of 57,000; 
-- Navy: 33,765 accessions, 100 percent of its goal of 33,740; 
-- Marine Corps: 26,018 accessions, 100.1 percent of its goal of 26,000; and 
-- Air Force: 24,070 accessions, 100 percent of its goal of 24,068. 
All four active services met their retention goals for fiscal 2014. 
Meanwhile, four of the six reserve components met or exceeded their fiscal 2014 numerical accession goals. All six reserve components also met or exceeded the DOD quality benchmarks. 
Here are the reserve component accession numbers for fiscal 2014 through September: 
-- Army National Guard: 47,062 accessions, 98.3 of its goal of 47,900; 
-- Army Reserve: 26,815 accessions, 91.5 percent of its goal of 29,313; 
-- Navy Reserve: 3,987 accessions, 103 percent of its goal of 3,853; 
-- Marine Corps Reserve: 8,333 accessions, 100 percent of its goal of 8,333; 
-- Air National Guard: 10,011 accessions, 109.4 percent of its goal of 9,154; and 
-- Air Force Reserve: 6,952 accessions, 142.6 percent of its goal of 4,875. 
All reserve components have met their attrition goals or were within the allowed variance and that current trend is expected to continue, officials said, noting that availability of data for this indicator lags behind availability of accessions data.recruiting 



AF Recruiting 



trainees 



training 



force management 



accessions
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

      ( print page 57740)    
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, 5 U.S.C. 552b. 

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

 Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 

# TIME AND DATE:

 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m., October 1, 2010. 

# PLACE:

Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Lobby Level Hearing Room (Room 1000). 

# STATUS:

Open. 

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

      - Issuance of an interim final rule relating to the time frame for reporting pre-enactment unexpired swaps to a swap data repository or to the Commission;
      - Issuance of proposed rules that would prescribe (i) certain risk management standards for those derivatives clearing organizations designated as systemically important (“SIDCOs”) by the Financial Stability Oversight Council under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act and (ii) standards requiring sixty (60) days advance notice of changes in SIDCO rules, procedures, or operations that materially affect the nature or level of risks presented by the SIDCO; and
      - Issuance of proposed rules specifying requirements for derivatives clearing organizations, designated contract markets, and swap execution facilities on governance arrangements and mitigation of conflicts of interest.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission, 202-418-5071. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-23821 Filed 9-20-10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Calvin Charles BARFIELD.

No. 2011-K-2818.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 2012.

*1247In re Barfield, Calvin Charles; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 302,399; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-515.

Denied.
--/ty-)/—<4>£*^<4^^z^l^^ j±.zy7± >vyy s~/s<A<

&£/? * 2\ fl^Z •____ • -

IP® *•"•'

7^^.ytiL^l33-3?2/sr <Co^AJ,.r>/-J3~aa9c>3~Cn 'fifi-nJng-;.<r

_ZM//> 7" .^S/.-fQ Z^JZL y&i^: /g-y>yg> v^ JZ~" ^yc^y\y ^/J.^^y.<ry^^/7

'JJTCZ- S7-<£iy*£j&d5Lc>siS UA^ZJTl ZZ^\A^l A/pT yWC?/l& /T. '<~a7-lSf./s^

J7Z£^<A/S££/L U.A//7Z ^JUL y\ A/y y^J^i, /*s//\L£ s//iiJ yw^y

S£/SV 'T TJCL-y*?ST. : l__ Lu

3&&s /s y-At^M^v^/ z±jm>Ji£s^y-^^ L

_^V\£fcci^Lxd^l_^^VsJZcL/jLt_J</-i.

jCl^&^oJZTX-. PPP.^^L

'^a S-e-AJi-y /"o-o-^^/ <£^L£i^/Ssy ^\a/^>-

-£hj> y^.^yolis
090506-F-JZ031-188.JPG
            MAJOR GENERAL (DR.) ARTHUR J. SACHSELMajor General (Dr.) Arthur J. Sachsel is assistant surgeon general for dental services, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.

General Suchsel was born in 1926, in New York City and graduated from Jonathan Dayton Regional High School, Springfield, N.J., in 1944. He attended the University of Michigan and received his doctorate in dental surgery from the University of Pennsylvania Dental School in 1950.

He joined the U.S. Air Force in 1950 and served as a general dental officer with the 1254th Military Air Transport Service, Washington, D.C. In February 1951 he was assigned to the 36th Fighter-Bomber Wing, Furstenfeldbruck Air Base, Germany. The general left the Air Force in June 1953 and opened private dental practice in Garwood, N.J. In July 1956 he returned to the Air Force and served as chief of restorative dentistry at the U.S. Air Force Hospital at Bolling Air Force Base, D.C., until August 1957. The general then transferred to the Air Force hospital, Zaragoza Air Base, Spain, first as a general dentist and later as base dental surgeon.

Returning to the United States in August 1960, he entered an Air Force-sponsored residency in periodontics at Ohio State University. In June 1962 he was assigned to the Air Force hospital at Travis Air Force Base, Calif., where he served successively as staff periodontist, chief of periodontics; and assistant base dental surgeon.

From July 1966 to January 1969, the general was assigned to the Air Force dispensary at Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, as chief of periodontics. He then returned to the United States and served successively as chief of periodontics, assistant base dental surgeon, base dental surgeon and director of dental intern training at the U.S. Air Force Regional Hospital at Chanute Air Force Base, Ill. He remained there until July 1974, when he became base dental surgeon and director of dental intern training at the regional hospital at March Air Force Base, Calif. In August 1979 the general returned to Germany as Headquarters U.S. Air Forces in Europe's assistant for dental services at Ramstein Air Base. He assumed his present duties in October 1982.

His military decorations and awards include the Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, Meritorious Service Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster and Air Force Outstanding Unit Award Ribbon with two oak leaf clusters.

The general is a fellow of the American College of Dentists, member of the American Dental Association, American Academy of Periodontics, American Society of Forensic Odontology, American Association of Dental Schools, Pierre Fauchard Academy, Association of Military Surgeons of the United States and Delta Sigma Delta dental fraternity.

He was promoted to major general Jan. 1, 1984, with date of rank Sept. 1, 1980.

(Current as of March 1984)
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 Annual Report of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stacy M. Riffe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/    STACY M. RIFFEStacy M. Riffe
|Chief Financial Officer            
|March 15, 2004