alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Holloman F-16s first in AF for aircraft purificationPublished Nov. 6, 2015
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Emily A. Kenney
                        
                        
                        49th Wing Public Affairs
                **HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFNS) --**
                The F-16 Fighting Falcons at Holloman Air Force Base became the first F-16s in the Air Force to go through the aircraft purification process Nov. 3.Aircraft purification has been performed on other airframes, but this was the first time it was performed on F-16s."Aircraft purification is removing all of the moisture, air and particles out of the hydraulic fluid in the systems of the aircraft," said Senior Master Sgt. Ian Hall, the 54th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron air ground equipment flight chief. "It's important because it will increase system reliability on the aircraft, and it will greatly reduce the long-term maintenance costs."The 54th AMXS received the Air Force's three hydraulic test stands that are equipped with onboard purification systems, making it more efficient overall."Previously, every time we had dirty fluid we had to do a drain and flush," Hall said. "That includes all of our AGE (aerospace ground equipment) as well. So, if our old hydraulic test stands were contaminated, we had to drain and flush the system three times and change the filters. Now, we can just run it through the new hydraulic test stand and purify our equipment. It's the same for the jets -- we cycle their fluid through the hydraulic test stand, and it's as good as new."This eight-hour process saves the Air Force time and money, as well as environmental waste. Every time the hydraulic test stands are used they save more than 200 gallons of fluid."In the big picture, you'd never have to do a drain and flush again," Hall said. "As long as you're hooking up that system when doing routine maintenance, it is still purifying that fluid."f-16 



aircraft purification 



Holloman AFB
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 90 (Monday, June 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7656]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             TRIBUTE TO FORMER SENATOR MARGARET CHASE SMITH

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, during my tenure as a Member of this 
distinguished body, I have had the pleasure of serving with many 
individuals of impressive character and ability. Few, however, 
possessed the unwavering commitment to principle and public service 
demonstrated by Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who passed away this week 
at her home in Skowhegan. I would like to offer her family and friends 
my deepest condolences for their loss, a loss suffered by our entire 
Nation.
  After an accomplished career of 8 years in the House of 
Representatives, Mrs. Smith was first elected to the Senate in 1948 and 
served four consecutive terms. A political leader of national stature, 
her substantial talents earned her a prominent role in Republican 
Presidential contests.
  Mrs. Smith brought grace and wisdom to this Chamber as a dedicated 
representative of the people. An intrepid spirit characterized her work 
as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which I had the 
pleasure of serving with her. At all times, the safety and prosperity 
of the Nation were her sole objectives, and she worked to ensure that 
the United States was always prepared to defend liberty against any 
enemy.
  When our Nation was gripped in turmoil, Mrs. Smith was quick to 
supply raging debates with needed perspective and calming insights. She 
personified the very best qualities that define the American character 
and applied those commendable attributes to all of her work as a Member 
of this institution.
  Mr. President, I am confident I speak for all of us who knew Margaret 
Chase Smith when I say that she will be greatly missed. Her legacy is a 
standard of public service toward which every Member of the U.S. Senate 
should strive, and my sympathies go out to all those touched by her 
warmth and intelligence.

                          ____________________
```
583 A.2d 344

#### LYNETTE TONELLI v. SATYENDER KHANNA, M.D.

March 20, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 238 *N.J.Super.*121, 569 A.2d 282)
News United States Air Force
 Vice chief of staff talks STEM to local educatorsPublished July 29, 2014
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Torri Ingalsbe
                        
                        
                        Air Force Public Affairs Agency, Operating Location – P
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Larry O. Spencer spoke to local educators about the particular importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics to the Air Force during an ASM Materials Teachers Camp July 18, at Shaw-Howard University, Washington, D.C.The week-long camp for local middle and high school science teachers shows them how to use low-cost, simple labs and experiments using everyday materials that can be integrated into existing lesson plans to engage young people about STEM.“One of the things I’ve found interesting in the Air Force is the amount of technology we have,” Spencer said. “We have drones that are being flown in Afghanistan, as I sit here, watching what people are doing. The people operating those drones are in Nevada -- essentially flying an airplane halfway around the world.”Spencer talked about the Air Force’s interest in femtosecond timing, directed energy, new jet engine technology and 3-D printing. According to the dictionary, a femtosecond is one quadrillionth, or one millionth of one billionth, of a second. An example of a femtosecond is one femtosecond is to one second, as one second is to about 32 million years.“In the Air Force, we have to get places in hours, not days or weeks,” he said. “What is technology going to be ten or 20 years from now? That’s why it’s so important what you guys are doing here today.”The camp was part of a larger Defense Department initiative called the DOD Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Diversity Campaign.“The objective of the (STEM Diversity Campaign) is to foster awareness, build skills and widen pathways into the department’s technical workforce for women and underrepresented minorities,” said Enjoli Ramsey, the Air Force STEM Diversity Outreach program manager. “The Air Force recognizes that diverse backgrounds and experiences bring inherently different outlooks and ways of thinking, the key to innovation in organizations as well as our success in the STEM community.”By providing camps like the ASM Materials Teachers Camp, inner-city school teachers are given tools to foster a culture conducive to growing students in the STEM subject areas.“Innovative and technically-savvy Airmen are essential to continued mission execution success,” Ramsey said. “Science, technology, engineering and math are a part of every mission we do. We will support the joint mission by assuring technically superior warfighting capabilities through attracting, recruiting/assessing, developing, and retaining a world class workforce of innovators.”science 



technology 



engineering 



mathematics 



stem
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1191 Engrossed in House (EH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1191

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the National Park Service to pay for services rendered by 
   subcontractors under a General Services Administration Indefinite 
Deliver/Indefinite Quantity Contract issued for work to be completed at 
                    the Grand Canyon National Park.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this Act, the following definitions apply:
            (1) IDIQ.--The term ``IDIQ'' means an Indefinite Deliver/
        Indefinite Quantity contract.
            (2) Park.--The term ``park'' means Grand Canyon National 
        Park.
            (3) PGI.--The term ``PGI'' means Pacific General, Inc.
            (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National 
        Park Service.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION.

    The Secretary is authorized, subject to the appropriation of such 
funds as may be necessary, to pay the amount owed to the subcontractors 
of PGI for work performed at the park under an IDIQ with PGI between 
fiscal years 2002 and 2003, provided that--
            (1) the primary contract between PGI and the National Park 
        Service is terminated;
            (2) the amount owed to the subcontractors is verified;
            (3) all reasonable legal avenues or recourse have been 
        exhausted by the subcontractors to recoup amounts owed directly 
        from PGI; and
            (4) the subcontractors provide a written statement that 
        payment of the amount verified in paragraph (2) represents 
        payment in full by the United States for all work performed at 
        the park under the IDIQ with PGI between fiscal years 2002 and 
        2003.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 17, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1191

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To authorize the National Park Service to pay for services rendered by 
   subcontractors under a General Services Administration Indefinite 
Deliver/Indefinite Quantity Contract issued for work to be completed at 
                    the Grand Canyon National Park.
```
#### SWARTWOUT *v.*BARNES.

Patents ; Interference.

Where, in an interference proceeding, the sole issue is one of fact, this court will be slow to disturb the finding of the Commissioner of Patents, especially where the evidence appears to fully sustain his decision.

No. 672.

Patent Appeals.

Submitted November 11, 1910.

Decided December 5, 1910.

Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference case.

*Affirmed.*

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Messrs. Meyers,*Cushman, *& Rea*and *Mr. H. C. Seitz*for the appellant.

*Mr. Louis H. Sanders*for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding. The Examiner of Interferences decided in favor of appellant, Emma J. Swartwout. This decision on appeal was reversed by the Board of Examinors-in-Chief, and the decision of the board was affirmed by the Commissioner, from whose decision appellant has brought the case to this court.

The invention relates to improvements in corset stays, and is sufficiently set forth for our purpose in the fourth count of the issue, as follows:

> *“A*corset or dress stay consisting of a single elastic wire *130formed into a series of substantially closed and aligned tandem triangular loops, all normally lying in the same plane.”

Where the sole issue is one of fact, we are slow to disturb the finding of the Patent Office, especially, as in this case,, where the evidence appears to fully sustain the conclusion reached by the Commissioner. The tribunals of the Patent Office in their opinions have very fully and accurately reviewed the evidence, and it would be useless effort expended on our part to rehearse it again.

The decision of the Commissioner is right, and is therefore affirmed. The clerk is directed to certify these proceedings, as by law required. *Affirmed.*
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 29, 2020

No. 04-19-00819-CR

Denys A. MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR12834

The Honorable Jennifer Pena, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

appellant's brief is due on or before May 26, 2020.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of April, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
News United States Air Force
 Tech Report: Aces IIPublished May 13, 2015
                        
                        By Air Force News Service
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --** No seat keeps pilots safer than the Advanced Concept Ejection Seat (ACES) II.The ejection seat is the last option for fighter pilots to use when things go wrong in the cockpit and they’re unable to save their jet. Here’s a behind-the-scenes look at how the seat works.The Air Force Tech Report is a video series that airs every other week and gives viewers a quick look at current technology the Air Force uses to fly, fight and win.Aces II 



ejection seat 



Advanced Concept Ejection Seat 



fighter pilot 



pilot 



jet 



Tech Report
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             982,157
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,607,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (121,583)
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,781,695
<PP&E>                                             908,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                     144,072
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,454,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,717,929
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            50,526
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,454,297
<SALES>                                          7,387,585
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,387,585
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,950,183
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 106,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (525,499)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (525,499)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (525,499)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
#### Melanie DUGUAY, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION/ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, Appellees.

No. 1D10-2700.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 22, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 2010.

*43Joseph M. Rooth of The Rooth Law Firm, P.A., New Port Richey, and Richard W. Ervin, III, of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Beatriz E. Justin and Nicolette E. Tsambis of Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Claimant raises four issues in this workers’ compensation appeal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the Final Compensation Order in all respects. We reject Claimant’s argument that the Judge of Compensation Claims erred in denying continuing authorization of Dr. Maser. In context, we read the Final Compensation Order as denying continuing authorization of Dr. Maser only for treatment related to the unauthorized surgery.

AFFIRMED.

DAVIS, HAWKES and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
September 14, 1979.

422 A.2d 1167

#### Commonwealth v. Allen, Appellant.

Submitted March 22, 1979.

Neal S. Axe, for appellant; Lee Kaplan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before VAN der VOORT, HESTER and WIEAND, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
<PAGE>

                         LA JOLLA COVE INVESTORS, INC.
                          1795 UNION STREET, 3rd FLOOR
                         SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94123
                            TELEPHONE: (415) 409-8703
                            FACSIMILE: (415) 409-8704
                            E-MAIL: LJCI@PACBELL.NET

LA JOLLA                       www.ljcinvestors.com               SAN FRANCISCO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                October ___, 2003



Mr. D. Ronald Allen
Integrated Performance Systems Inc.
17300 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 2040
Dallas, TX 75248


Re: Amount Due from Integrated Performance Systems, Inc.
to La Jolla Cove Investors, Inc.


Dear Ronald:

This letter will set forth our  agreement for the payment of the amount due from
Integrated  Performance Systems Inc.  ("Integrated") to La Jolla Cove Investors,
Inc.  ("LJCI") in the amount of  $56,909.42,  plus interest on such amount at 9%
from July 1, 2003.

Under  the  Securities  Purchase  Agreement,  LJCI  is to  advance  $250,000  to
Integrated  upon closing.  It is agreed that LJCI will retain  $56,909.42,  plus
interest  on such amount at 9% from July 1, 2003,  from the initial  advance for
the payment of the amount due from Integrated to LJCI.

If this letter  correctly  reflects our  agreement  regarding the payment of the
amount owed from  Integrated  to LJCI,  please  acknowledge  your  agreement  by
signing below.


Sincerely,


Travis W. Huff
Portfolio Manager


Integrated Performance Systems Inc.

By: __________________________

Title: ________________________
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 27, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00436

- CV

Bryan SMITH d/b/a Vision Design and Build

,

Appe llant

v.

Robert OVERBY and Teresa Overby,

Appellee s

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008

- CI

- 02799

Honorable Gloria Saldana, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant ’ s reply brief wa s due on April 5 , 2016 ; we granted Appellant’s first motion for

extension of time to file the reply brief until April 25 , 2016

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6( c) , (d)

. On

April 22 , 2016 , Appellant filed an unopposed second motion for extension of time to file the

reply brief until May 9 , 2016

.

Appellant ’ s motion is GRANTED

. A ppellant ’ s reply brief must be filed not later than

May 9 , 2016. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE THE REPLY BRIEF

WILL BE GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED on April 27, 2016.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

____________________________ ____

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 31.2****Rule 13a-14 Certification**I, Frank P. Vaughan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Cronos Group (the “Registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which 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 inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the AuditCommittee of Registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report 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.Date: May 12, 2006/s/ FRANK P. VAUGHAN