alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Aug. 2Published Aug. 2, 2016
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                
**FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)**-- On this look around the Air Force, the F-35A Lightning II becomes combat ready; Airmen at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, revamp a C-130H Hercules for fighting wildfires; and the Air Force selects the 12 Outstanding Airmen of the Year. Hosted by SSgt Traci Keller.
For previous episodes, click here.
Related links:
- AF declares the F-35A ‘combat ready’
- AF maintenance squadron prepares C-130 for US Forest Service
- AF announces 12 Outstanding Airmen of the Year for 2016F-35A 



Lightning II 



Hill AFB 



Utah 



Robins AFB 



Georgia 



C-130H 



firefighting 



Forest Service 



wildfires 



12OAY 



Outstanding Airmen of the Year 



SSgt Traci Keller 



ATAF
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, PETER J. RICE, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MRO Software, Inc., a
Massachusetts 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 officer 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) 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 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 the 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 14, 2004

By: /s/ Peter J. Rice
---------------------------------
Peter J. Rice
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 99.2



STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT

TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-QSB") of Guaranty Financial Corporation (the "Company"), I, Tara Y. Harrison, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



(a) the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(b) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.





Date:  May 15, 2003

By:  /s/ Tara Y. Harrison

Tara Y. Harrison

Vice President and Chief

Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Guaranty Financial Corporation and will be retained by Guaranty Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5684]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                             SPECIAL ORDERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of May 12, 1995, and under a previous order of the House, the 
following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.

                          ____________________
```
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1191 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

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. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

HR 1191 RFS

1 SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. 

2 As used in this Act, the following definitions apply: 

3 (1) IDIQ.—The term ‘‘IDIQ’’ means an Indefi4 nite Deliver/Indefinite Quantity contract. 

5 (2) PARK.—The term ‘‘park’’ means Grand 

6 Canyon National Park. 

7 (3) PGI.—The term ‘‘PGI’’ means Pacific Gen8 eral, Inc. 

9 (4) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

10 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Di11 rector of the National Park Service. 

12 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION. 

13 The Secretary is authorized, subject to the appropria14 tion of such funds as may be necessary, to pay the amount 

15 owed to the subcontractors of PGI for work performed at 

16 the park under an IDIQ with PGI between fiscal years 

17 2002 and 2003, provided that— 

18 (1) the primary contract between PGI and the 

19 National Park Service is terminated; 

20 (2) the amount owed to the subcontractors is 

21 verified; 

22 (3) all reasonable legal avenues or recourse 

23 have been exhausted by the subcontractors to recoup 

24 amounts owed directly from PGI; and 

25 (4) the subcontractors provide a written state26 ment that payment of the amount verified in paraVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:14 Apr 19, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1191.RFS H1191

bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
3 

HR 1191 RFS

1 graph (2) represents payment in full by the United 

2 States for all work performed at the park under the 

3 IDIQ with PGI between fiscal years 2002 and 2003. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 17, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SATANAND SHARMA, an individual,

AKA Stan Sharma; THE BIDYA

SHARMA IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF

1996, a trust,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

NATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., a

California corporation; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-56461

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03345-DDP-JWJ

MEMORANDUM*

SATANAND SHARMA, an individual,

AKA Stan Sharma; THE BIDYA

SHARMA IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF

1996, a trust,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

 v.

NATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., a

California corporation,

 Defendant - Appellant,

Nos. 09-56828

 09-56962

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03345-DDP-JWJ

FILED

JUL 23 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
The panel unanimously concludes these appeals are suitable for **

decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 09-56828

 and

ROQUE DE LA FUENTE, II, an

individual; et al.,

 Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Satanand Sharma and the Bidya Sharma Irrevocable Trust of 1996

(collectively, “Sharma”) appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their

action alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Act (“RICO”). National Enterprises, Inc. appeals from the order denying its

motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s

dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541, 545 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).

We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s Rule 11 determination. 
3 09-56828

Retail Flooring Dealers of Am., Inc. v. Beaulieu of Am., LLC, 339 F.3d 1146, 1150

(9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

Appeal No. 09-56461

The district court properly dismissed the action because Sharma failed to

allege facts showing that defendants’ actions proximately caused the alleged

injuries. See Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 130 S. Ct. 983, 988-90 (2010)

(discussing proximate cause requirement for civil RICO claims). 

We are not persuaded by Sharma’s contention regarding leave to amend. 

See Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming

dismissal without leave to amend where amendment would be futile). 

Sharma’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Appeal Nos. 09-56828, 09-56962

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying National

Enterprises’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions after finding that the complaint was not

legally or factually baseless from an objective perspective. See Christian v. Mattel,

Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir. 2002) (listing factors that district courts must

consider in determining whether to impose Rule 11 sanctions).

APPEAL NO. 09-56461: AFFIRMED.

APPEAL NOS. 09-56828, 09-56962: AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section1350,**

**as****Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof McLeodUSA Incorporated (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Chris A. Davis, as Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Chris A. Davis             |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Name: Chris A. Davis           |
| Title: Chief Executive Officer |
| Date: May 10, 2005             |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retainedby the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
#### D. H. Regan v. R. H. Bonham.

(No. 2752.)

Appeal from Jackson County.

O. E. Oarsner, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 66. *Limitation; account between merchant and merchant; case stated.*Suit for a balance on open account. Plea of the statute of limitation of two years was sustained and judgment was rendered for the defendant. It *103ivas admitted by the parties, as shown by the agreed statement of facts, and was so found by the trial court, that both parties were merchants; that the several bills of goods mentioned in the account were purchased by defendant of plaintiff, not for his own personal use, but for the purpose of selling again for profit. The account itself shows it to be current and mutual, being mutual debits and credits covering a period of more than twelve months, the last item of said account being dated October 26, 1886, and being for cotton purchased by appellant from appellee. Suit was filed February 25, 1889. The account being one between merchant and merchant — being mutual and current — was not barred by the statute of limitations of two years; and the suit was brought within four years from the cessation of business between the parties. [R. S., art. 3203, subd. 5, and art. 3205, subd. 3; Water-works Co. v. Murray, 72 Tex. 112; McGuire v. Bidwell, 64 Tex. 43.] The judgment of the court below is reversed, and judgment is here rendered that D. H. Regan, appellant, plaintiff in the court below, do have and recover of and from the appellee, R. H. Bonham, defendant in the court below, the sum of $640.78, and interest upon the same at the rate of eight per cent, per annum from the 1st day of January, 1887, the date of the accrual of said account, together with all cost in this behalf and in the court below expended, for which execution may issue.

March 15, 1890.

Reversed and rendered.
#### MYROSLAW DRAGAN ET AL. *v.*STAMFORD HOSPITAL

(AC 17272)

Lavery, C. J., and West and Stoughton, Js.

Argued April 28

officially released May 20, 2003

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**Rule 13a-14 Certification**
I, Dennis J Tietz, 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 untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theRegistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and we have:
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; and
(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of Registrant’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report information; and
(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: May 14, 2004
/s/ DENNIS J TIETZDennis J TietzChief Executive Officer
29
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 Quarterly Report of Coastal Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Catherine N. Wylie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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: 11/14/03    By: /s/ Catherine N. Wylie    
Catherine N. Wylie
 Chief Financial Officer
  (A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Coastal Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Coastal Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)
#### J. G. Allison v. W. W. Gregory.

(No. 2820.)

Appeal from Galveston County.

M. C. McLemore and Morgan Mann, counsel for appellant.

S. S. Hanscom, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 62. *Appeal bond from justice’s court; conditions of; case stated.*Appellee sued appellant in justice’s court to recover an alleged indebtedness of $126. He recovered judgment in said court, and appellant appealed to the county court, in which last-named court his appeal, upon motion of appellee, was dismissed upon the ground that his appeal bond was not such as is required by law. Said appeal bond is conditional that appellant “shall prosecute his appeal with effect, and shall pay all the costs which have accrued in the court below, or which may accrue in the appellate court.” Said bond is not conditioned as required by law in such cases. It is required by law that such a bond shall be conditioned “that the appellant shall prosecute his appeal to effect, and shall *paj*off and satisfy the judgment which may be rendered against him on such appeal.” [E. S., art. 1639.] If he is unable to give such bond, he may nevertheless appeal by making an affidavit of his inability, as-*98prescribed by law. [Sayles’ Civil- Sfc., art. 1639a.] But these are the only two modes prescribed by law for perfecting an appeal from justice’s court, and one or the other of them must be pursued. Article 1400 of the Revised Statutes, providing for an appeal by bond for costs merely, is applicable only to- appeals from the district and county courts. It does not apply to appeals from the justice’s court, because such appeals are specially provided for by articles 1639 and 1639a, *supra,*and hence those articles must limit and control the mode of proceeding in such cases. [R. S., art. 1644; 1 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 409.] We hold that there was no error in dismissing the appeal.

February 19, 1890.

Affirmed.
[No. 45142-1-I.

Division One.

May 15, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Deborah Valentine, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 98-1-06965-8, Nicole Maclnnes, J., entered September 27, 1999. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          12,736
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  271,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                    87,582
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          12,012
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,029
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 206,727
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,770
<BONDS>                                          5,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           240
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   206,727
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,803
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,110
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,862
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                18,070
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,002)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,002)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,002)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.96)
        

</TABLE>
583 A.2d 341

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES O’DONNELL.

March 20, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### S. W. Bailey et al. v. M. A. Miears.

(No. 1533, Op. Book No. 3, p. 439.)

Appeal from Lamar County.

December 18, 1880.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 84. *Property in custody of the law tvhen delivered on claim bond.*Property which has been levied upon under process, and delivered to a claimant who has executed a bond therefor under the statute providing for the trial of the right of property, is *in custodia legis*and not subject to a subsequent levy of process against the defendant in the first process. [Freeman on Judgments, 187; Acker v. White, 25 Wend. 614; Rhines v. Phelps, 3 Gilm. 455; Selleck v. Phelps, 11 Wis. 380; Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet. 400.]

Affirmed.