alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Periodic inspection: Just what the ‘tanker doc’ orderedPublished April 20, 2015
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Tara Fadenrecht
                        
                        
                        22nd Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs
                **MCCONNELL AIR FORCE BASE, Kan. (AFNS) --**
                For more than 40 years, KC-135 Stratotankers have been flying over the sunflower state, and just like any other crew member, they need their "check-ups" too.
Keeping the 60-year-old planes up-to-date and safe to fly takes more than a simple check-up; it takes a team of tanker "docs" ensuring each aircraft undergoes proper treatment.
Every two years, or 1,800 flight hours, each KC-135 assigned to McConnell Air Force Base must go through an in-depth inspection, also known as a periodic inspection.
On average, 21 inspections are completed a year by crew chiefs and jet engine back shop Airmen from the 22nd Maintenance Squadron working three shifts around the clock.
The first step in the inspection process is to remove all the aircraft panels on the aircraft once it arrives in the hangar. The maintenance team of about 100 Airmen work together for about two days to accomplish this task, said Senior Airman Seth Rex, a 22nd MXS inspections section apprentice.
Once all panels have been removed, the team inspects every inch of the aircraft, inside and out, leaving no nut or bolt unchecked.
"We get in the nitty-gritty small spaces," Rex said. "We lube all the points that need to be lubed, and we look for cracks and any other kind of damage."
The maintenance crews repair many of the discrepancies that are found during the thorough inspection, but sometimes special attention is required.
When a problem cannot be fixed within this section, the job is delegated to a shop that works in a specific area of expertise, such as sheet metal, hydraulics or electro-environmental.
Staff Sgt. Keith Barney, a 22nd MXS aerospace propulsion craftsman, works side by side with the inspection section crew chiefs, but his focus is on the aircraft engines.
"We make sure the engine is operating at the parameters it's supposed to operate at from the lowest power setting to the highest power setting," Barney said. "Anything we find that's broken or doesn't meet the inspection criteria, we fix or replace it, or do whatever we have to do to get it back where it's supposed to be."
Usually within two weeks, maintenance teams have meticulously inspected and made repairs to an entire aircraft, which is then ready to be launched for a test flight.
"The pilots come out, run their ground test and do their look-over," Rex said. "We fix whatever problems they may have and get ready to send (the aircraft) off."
As the KC-135 lifts off the ground, the maintenance crews sit back to watch their hard work pay off and anticipate the call from the aircrew verifying it's a "code one" aircraft, meaning it's good to go.AMC 



KC-135 Stratotankers 



inspection 



maintenance 



maintainers 



McConnell AFB
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

February 25, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-01026-CV

KHALED ALATTAR, Appellant

V.

MESIA HUTTNER HACHADORIAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-54501

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed November 11, 2013. On February 

12, 2014, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. 

The motion is granted. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, McCally, and Busby.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

               THE SPEAKER AND THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY

  (Mr. BONIOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I awoke this morning to an article in the 
paper entitled ``Cecil B. Gingrich.'' Now it seems a major production 
studio is eying Mr. Gingrich's novel ``1945'' for the big screen.
  The novel contains a sex scene between a spy and the White House 
chief of staff, which led Bob Dole to include the book in his criticism 
of the entertainment industry.
  Mr. Gingrich's Hollywood agent says he expects the Georgia Republican 
to receive more than $1 million in movie rights. At a time when Speaker 
Gingrich is asking senior citizens to take $1,000 out of their pockets 
to pay for tax breaks for the rich, he is out there lining his own 
pockets with multimillion-dollar deals from media moguls and Hollywood 
producers.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 32.b

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 Dial Global, Inc. (formerly Westwood One, Inc.) (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hiram M. Lazar Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that to my knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/S/ Hiram M. Lazar     
|Hiram M. Lazar         
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 28, 2012         



|* | This statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Dial Global, Inc. and will be retained by Dial Global, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
583 A.2d 330

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LAMONT SMITH.

February 27, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
060202-F-JZ508-111.JPG
            CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT OF THE AIR FORCE ROBERT D. GAYLORChief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Robert D. Gaylor was adviser to Secretary of the Air Force John C. Stetson and Chiefs of Staff of the Air Force Gen. David C. Jones and Gen. Lew Allen Jr. on matters concerning welfare, effective utilization and progress of the enlisted members of the Air Force. He was the fifth chief master sergeant appointed to this ultimate noncommissioned officer position.
Chief Gaylor was born in Bellevue, Iowa; however, most of his youth was spent in Indiana. He entered the Air Force in September 1948 and was assigned to the security police career field, in which he served until 1957. In September 1957 he served as a military training instructor at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, until February 1962. He then returned to the security police field until July 1965. During Chief Gaylor's security police years, his early assignments were at James Connally Air Force Base, Texas; Laredo Air Force Base, Texas; Kunsan Air Base, Korea; Tachikawa Air Base, Japan; Columbus Air Force Base, Miss.; and Barksdale Air Force Base, La.
Chief Gaylor was an honor graduate of Class 65B of the Second Air Force Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Academy at Barksdale. After graduation in April 1965 he was selected to be an instructor at the academy and taught there until it closed in April 1966. Following a security police tour at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand, Chief Gaylor returned to Barksdale and assisted in reopening the SAC NCO Academy. In February 1970 he became senior enlisted adviser for Second Air Force. In July 1971 Chief Gaylor transferred to Headquarters United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE), where he traveled to USAFE bases teaching management techniques. In June 1972 he established the USAFE Command Management and Leadership Center, an in-residence, 60-hour course of instruction for USAFE NCOs. He continued as noncommissioned officer in charge of the center until his selection as USAFE Senior Enlisted Adviser in August 1973. In September 1974 Chief Gaylor was assigned to the Air Force Military Personnel Center, where he traveled extensively as a management and leadership instructor. He became chief master sergeant of the Air Force in 1977 and retired July 31, 1979.**MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS**
Legion of Merit
Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters
Air Force Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster**EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION**
Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Aug 1, 1977
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
  
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 15, 2008 (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/ UMANG GUPTA

Umang GuptaChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board(Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 85 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 85

    Expressing the disfavor of the Congress regarding the proposed 
                       agreement for cooperation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2008

    Mr. Markey introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing the disfavor of the Congress regarding the proposed 
                       agreement for cooperation.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress does not 
favor the proposed agreement for cooperation transmitted to the 
Congress by the President on May 13, 2008.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
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 NorthWest Indiana Bancorp (the "Company") for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), each of David A. Bochnowski, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Robert T. Lowry, Senior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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; and





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





Dated:   July 22, 2010
              /s/ David A. BochnowskiDavid A. BochnowskiChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Robert T. LowryRobert T. LowrySenior Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer and Treasurer





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 required
by Section 906, has been provided to NorthWest Indiana Bancorp and will be
retained by NorthWest Indiana Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KAMAL QAZAH, a/k/a Kamal Zaki Qazah,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big 

Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (2:17-cr-00014-JPJ-2)

Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 24, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kamal Qazah, Appellant Pro Se. Whitney Demain Pierce, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7064 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Kamal Qazah appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of 

a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 

326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the 

reasons for the denial. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. 

Qazah, No. 2:17-cr-00014-JPJ-2 (W.D. Va. Aug. 25, 2022). We also deny Qazah’s motion 

to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7064 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
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



I, Umang Gupta, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Keynote Systems, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 24, 2003 (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.
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:    December 29, 2003



|/S/    UMANG
GUPTA                               
|-------------------------------------------------
|Umang Gupta                                      
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
|(Principal Executive Officer)                    



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Keynote Systems, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       4,483,097
<SECURITIES>                                 1,968,699
<RECEIVABLES>                                  332,201
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,040,738
<PP&E>                                       2,656,147
<DEPRECIATION>                                 783,102
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,114,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,580,544
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,053
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,457,449
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,114,046
<SALES>                                     13,273,370
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,273,370
<CGS>                                        8,835,485
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,835,485
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,620,221
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,915,435
<INCOME-TAX>                                   754,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,161,435
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,161,435
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
        




</TABLE>
#### O. P. Watson v. J. P. Montgomery.

(No. 6456.)

Appeal from Eastland County.

J. H. Davenport and B. P. Cotton, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 74. *Garnishment; admissions of garnishee admissible to contradict his answer.*Appellee, having a judgment against Smith, garnished appellant, who answered that he was not indebted to’ Smith, and had none of Smith’s effects in his possession. Appellee controverted appellant’s answer, and, upon trial of the issue, the court found that, at the time of the service of the writ of garnishment upon appellant, he had in his possession sixteen head of cattle, the property of said Smith, and that, after the service of said writ,. appellant delivered said cattle to said Smith; that said cattle were of the value of <$120; and thereupon the court rendered judgment hi favor of appellee against appellant for said sixteen head of cattle, or, in case they could not be found, for their value, $120. On the trial, over objections of appellant, appellee was permitted to prove admissions made by appellant which contradicted his answer to the garnishment, said admissions being that, at the time the writ of garnishment was served upon him, he had in his possession sixteen head of cattle, the property of said Smith, and also admissions made by appellant about the time the garnishment was served that he owed Smith thirty or thirty-two head of cattle. There was no error in admitting this testimony. A party’s admissions are evidence against him, and we 'can see no reason why the answer of a garnishee may not be contradicted, and the credibility of it thus impeached by proof of admissions made by him inconsistent with the statements in his *116answer. There is ample evidence to.support the findings of the court that the answer of appellant was successfully contradicted, and that appellant was liable to appellee for the value of the sixteen head of cattle. But in the record before us there is not a particle of evidence as to the value of said cattle, and therefore the finding and judgment of the court in favor of the appellee for $120 cannot be sustained, and for this insufficiency of evidence the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

April 19, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #12266 and #12267] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 2.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-1931-DR), dated 08/03/2010. 

*Incident:*                         Hurricane Alex.                     

*Incident Period:*                         06/30/2010 through 08/14/2010.                     

*Effective Date:*                         09/16/2010.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         10/04/2010.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         05/03/2011.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 08/03/2010 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

*Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*

Lubbock. 

*Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only):*

*Texas: Crosby, Floyd, Garza, Hale, Hockley, Lamb, Lynn, Terry.*

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2010-23803 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P