alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 First families arrive at Ramstein from TurkeyPublished March 31, 2016
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Sara Keller
                        
                        
                        86th Airlift Wing Public Affairs
                **RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany (AFNS)  --**
                The first group of families arrived at Ramstein Air Base March 30 after the State Department and the secretary of defense approved the ordered departure of dependents of service members and Defense Department civilian personnel currently stationed in Adana, Izmir, and Mugla, Turkey.
As dependents depart Turkey, Ramstein AB has been designated as a 'transition location' for families to await travel to their subsequent duty locations. However, a number of families will relocate to Ramstein AB for an extended period of time.
The decision for dependents to depart Turkey allows for the deliberate, safe return of family members from these areas due to continued security concerns in the region. Although the decision was not reached easily; it is based upon past practice, ongoing and maturing military operations, and keeping employees and families' best interests at the front of the decision-making process.
As the number of personnel grows on the base, support agencies at Ramstein AB stand ready to meet the needs of its newest members.
"It has been impressive to watch so many of our base organizations come together and be prepared to help our Air Force family members as soon as they get here," said Master Sgt. Chad Oswold, the 721st Aerial Port Squadron NCO in charge of passenger operations. "I think we are really ready for anything. Some of the agencies that are set up to help the incoming travelers include pre-coordinated hotel reservations and customs procedures, American Red Cross services, travel specialist to assist with onward travel reservations and many other.
The capabilities we have as a base is just amazing," Oswald continued. "It takes a lot of people to make this happen and to see Team Ramstein come together to make this all happen is just on a different level."
According to the U.S. European Command, the removal of dependents will facilitate the safe departure of family members from Turkey.
The safety and security of military families is a top priority and they intend to mitigate the risk to DOD elements and personnel, including family members, within the authorities and means of the command, while ensuring the combat effectiveness of U.S. forces and mission support to operations in Turkey.
Military dependents are a huge part of the Air Force family and making sure they are taken care of will be a top priority as they arrive at Ramstein.
"We're all one family and these folks are going to remember this for the rest of their lives," said Lt. Col. Nathan Tarkowski, the 86th Mission Support Group deputy commander. "We want them to remember that the 86th AW was there for them when they needed it the most."Ramstein AB 



Germany 



USAFE 



turkey 



Izmir Related Links
        State Department, DOD approve dependents’ departure from Turkey
1 ALD
- 259 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 12

- 3021

___________ In Re: JOSEPH W. HIGGINS, Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ( Related to Civ. No. 3

- 11

- cv - 01821 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. August 16, 2012 Before: 

### SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : August 28, 2012 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM

. Petitioner, Joseph W. Higgins , seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the District Court to rule on his Motion for Default Judgment, which was filed in January 2012. For the following reasons, mandamus relief is not warranted. Higgins filed a complaint alleging that he is the victim of a conspiracy of “unlawful, intentional, willful and evil misconduct of retaliation” and invidious discrimination at the hands of severa l state court judges, state court employees, and a2 United States District Judge. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the basis of res judicata, because the same allegations, articulated in a separate complaint, had already been dismissed, and be cause absolute judicial immunity barred any additional claims against the United States District Court judge. On the same day as the order was entered, Higgins moved for default judgment as to all state defendants. In July, Higgins filed this mandamus pe tition seeking to compel a ruling on the motion, which remains pending. Issuance of a writ of mandamus is proper in only extraordinary circumstances. In re Grand Jury , 680 F.3d 328, 340 (3d Cir. 2012). Its traditional purpose is “to confine an inferio r court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n , 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943). A petitioner must demonstrate a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). While undue delay can amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction, Madden v. Myers

Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition. , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996), it is plain from the District Court’s docket that there has been no such undue delay
in Higgins ’s case. We are confident that the District Court will issue a ruling on Higgins’s motion in due course

.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         I, Jeffrey I. Dreben, the Chief executive officer of CVF Technologies
Corporation (the "Company") hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge: that the Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2003 accompanying this certification (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: March 30, 2004

                                                CVF TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

                                                /s/  Jeffrey I. Dreben
                                                --------------------------------
                                                JEFFREY I. DREBEN
                                                Chief Executive Officer

                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         I, Robert L. Miller, the chief financial officer of CVF Technologies
Corporation (the "Company") hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge: that the Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2003 accompanying this certification (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: March 30, 2004

                                                CVF TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

                                                /s/  Robert L. Miller
                                                --------------------------------
                                                ROBERT L. MILLER
                                                Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Albert CHAMBERS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0154.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Chambers, Albert; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 884611; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1323.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and

Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors

so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 15-BG-1094

IN RE: JOEL D. JOSEPH,

Respondent.

Bar Registration No. 183830 BDN: 261-15

BEFORE: Fisher, Associate Judge, and Nebeker and Reid, Senior Judges. 

ORDER

(FILED - December 17, 2015)

On consideration of the certified opinion of the Court of Appeals of Maryland

disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Attorney

Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Joseph, 31 A.3d 137 (Md. 2011), this court’s

October 8, 2015, order directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline

should not be imposed, the response of respondent, the statement of Bar Counsel

regarding reciprocal discipline, the lodged reply of respondent, and it appearing that

respondent filed his D.C. Bar R. XI, §14 (g) affidavit on October 29, 2015, it is

ORDERED that the Clerk shall file the lodged reply of respondent. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Joel D. Joseph is hereby disbarred from the

practice of law in this jurisdiction, nunc pro tunc to October 29, 2015. To the extent

respondent challengesimposition of reciprocal discipline by attempting to re-litigate

the discipline imposed by the state of Maryland, such a challenge is improper in

reciprocal disciplinary proceedings, see In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 969 (D.C.

2003) (“Put simply, reciprocal discipline proceedings are not a forum to reargue the

foreign discipline.”). Further, to the extent that respondent argues that there was a

deficiency of evidence to support the originating jurisdiction’s findings that he

engaged in misrepresentations as to his residence when he filed a motion to appear

pro hac vice, he was permitted to submit evidence and argument in the originating

jurisdiction on why he should not be disbarred.

PER CURIAM
#### G., C. & S. F. R’y Co. v. H. Booton.

(No. 2890.)

Appeal from Fort Bend County.

J. W. Terry, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

*104March 15, 1890.

§ 67. *Carrier; consignee must receive freight when tendered him; sale of freight for freight charges; case stated.*Appellee sued appellant for the value of a lot of sewing-machines ($400) shipped by him from Wiles’ Point to Bichmond, Texas. ' He recovered judgment for the amount sued for and costs. It appears from the evidence that said sewing-machines, when shipped by appellee, were knocked down and packed in boxes and crates. Appellee claims that there were seventeen boxes and fifteen crates, containing said machines shipped. Sixteen boxes and fifteen crates of said freight were transported from Wiles’ Point to Bichmond within a reasonable time, and tendered to appellee. He refused to receive said freight because one box thereof was missing. There were freight and, storage charges due upon said freight, which appellee refused to pay, and after the lapse of about one year from the time said freight was tendered to appellee at Bichmond, it was sold in accordaiice with law to pay freight and storage charges, and the amount realized from said sales did not more than satisfy said charges. We are of the opinion that the verdict and judgment are against the evidence and the law. Appellee was bound, under the facts of this case, to receive the portion of the freight-tendered him. He could only recover for that portion of the freight that was not tendered him. [Hutch. Carriers, § 775.]

Beversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 AF marks first RQ-4 non-military base landingPublished Feb. 24, 2015
                        
                        By Maj. Ben Sakrisson
                        
                        
                        15th Wing Public Affairs
                **MELBOURNE, Australia (AFNS) --**
                A remotely piloted U.S. Air Force RQ-4 Global Hawk aircraft landed Feb. 22, at Avalon Airport in Victoria, Australia, marking this the first time a high-altitude asset has flown into a non-military air base to be viewed by the general public.
The aircraft's arrival at the 2015 Australian International Airshow and Aerospace & Defense Exposition enables civil authorities to personally see the high-altitude intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities of a platform that is critical to the success of the U.S. military's rebalance to the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.
"This is significant on a number of fronts," said Royal Australian air force Air Marshal Geoff Brown, the Chief of air force. "It is the first time a military unmanned aerial system (UAS) has been in civil airspace with a civil air traffic control service in Australia, and the first time a military UAS has landed at a civil airport. Additionally, we have a keen interest in seeing the RQ-4 up close given our recent acquisition of the MQ-4C Triton, which provides the needed capability to monitor and protect Australia's vast ocean approaches."
The safe arrival of the RQ-4 demonstrates that procedures developed in concert with the RAAF and civil air traffic control and aviation safety organizations can allow remotely piloted aircraft to operate safely in civil airspace, in a similar manner to manned aircraft. This arrival can also help pave the way for safe operation of Australia's newly acquired MQ-4 Triton.
"The close coordination required to bring the Global Hawk to Australia will pay great dividends in the future," said Col. Art Primas, the U.S. “air boss” at Avalon. "Creating standardized procedures will enable us to work together much more effectively and efficiently during whatever missions future requirements dictate."
The integrated sensor suite aboard the Global Hawk provides theater commanders day and night all-weather ISR capabilities with greater than 24-hour loiter time, which contributes to stability and security of the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.
Approximately 100 Airmen are participating in airshow to showcase the capabilities of U.S. air assets.RQ-4 



RPA 



unmanned 



Avalon Airport 



Australia 



RQ-4 Global Hawk Related Links
        RQ-4 Global Hawk
                                Oct. 27, 2014
                                The RQ-4 Global Hawk is a high-altitude, long-endurance, remotely piloted aircraft with an integrated sensor suite that provides global all-weather, day or night intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 21, 2016

p0914 

# Order

Clerk September 21, 2016

153649 & (80)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee/

Cross

- Appellant,

v SC: 153649

COA: 323170

Ionia CC: 2012

- 015535

- FH

MARTI J. SCHRAUBEN,

Defendant

- Appellant/

Cross

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 26, 2016

ju dgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross

appellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Howard Christian SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D09-4332.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 17, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 2010.

*34Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Paula S. Saunders, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney Generals, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

HAWKES, C.J.

Howard Sullivan appeals his convictions and sentences for second-degree murder and robbery with a deadly weapon. We affirm the robbery conviction without further discussion, and write only to address Sullivan’s argument that the trial court committed fundamental error when instructing the jury on second-degree murder. Sullivan claims the trial court erred because, when instructing the jury on manslaughter by act, a lesser included offense of second degree-murder, it informed the jury that intent to kill was a required element. Defendant did not object to this instruction at trial. We find Sullivan’s argument persuasive and, there-foi-e, reverse his second-degree murder conviction and sentence.

Pursuant to *State v. Montgomery,*39 So.3d 252, 257 (Fla.2010), the relevant intent in the charge of manslaughter by act “is the intent to commit an act which caused death, [not] that the defendant intended to kill the victim.” *Montgomery*states any instruction that includes intent to kill as an element of manslaughter by act is fundamental error. *Id.*at 258. A narrow exception exists when the trial court gives the erroneous instruction on manslaughter by act in combination with the instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence. *See Joyner v. State,*41 So.3d 306, 306-07 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Fundamental error does not occur in such circumstances because it is possible the jury will base its decision only upon the elements of manslaughter by culpable negligence, which do not require a finding of intent to kill. *Id.*at 306; *see also Riesel v. State,*48 So.3d 885, 886-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); *Jackson v. State,*49 So.3d 271, 271-72 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); *Salonko v. State,*42 So.3d 801, 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Here, the trial court instructed the jury that manslaughter by act required an intent to kill, and gave no instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence. Accordingly, under *Montgomery,*the jury instruction was fundamental error. Therefore, we reverse Sullivan’s conviction for second-degree murder and remand for a new trial on that charge.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

ROBERTS and ROWE, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 85 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5369]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 PRAYER

  The Chaplain, Rev. James David Ford, D.D., offered the following 
prayer:
  We are thankful, O gracious God, that we have been given 
responsibility for our lives and times and are accountable for the way 
we use our talents and the resources of the land. We know that people 
in every place and in every age have obligations to lead and protect 
the gifts that have been given them as individuals and as a nation. We 
pray this day, O God, that Your Spirit would focus our hearts and minds 
on how we can be faithful in our tasks, trustworthy in our work, and 
enthusiastic about the issues of justice and mercy. May Your blessing 
be with us and all Your people, now and evermore. Amen.

                          ____________________
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Shelvin SMITH.

No. 2011-KK-0312.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 21, 2011.

*233PER CURIAM.*

11While the courts below properly noted that merely being a passenger in a vehicle does not itself provide probable cause to believe the passenger is involved in the driver’s suspected drug activities, the courts overlooked that police can — and did here — have additionally known information providing probable cause to arrest the passenger.

It is well established that the test for probable cause draws upon the totality of the circumstances. *State v. Aites,*2010-0667 (La.5/28/10), 37 So.3d 993, 994. A review of the record here shows that the hand-to-hand transaction witnessed by police provided probable cause to believe that an unlawful drug transaction had occurred. Moreover, this transaction confirmed the officer’s suspicion that the vehicle was trolling for drug buyers in the hotel parking lots. The fact that the police had observed this transaction after the vehicle had slowly made its way through not one, but two, hotel parking lots known for drug trafficking supported the officer’s belief that Mr. Smith was involved in the drug dealing, instead of being merely a passenger along for the ride.

|aThe belief that Mr. Smith was involved was also supported by the fact that during the hand-to-hand transaction, the rear passenger passed what appeared to be currency into the front of the passenger compartment where Mr. Smith was seated. Even though the officer could not see whether the apparent currency was accepted by the driver, by Mr. Smith, or by both of them, does not detract from the other circumstances adding up to probable cause that Mr. Smith was involved in an illegal drug deal. *See State v. Nine,*315 So.2d 667, 673 (La.1975) (even though officer could not see which occupant of house threw bags of marijuana onto ground, it was not unreasonable for officer to conclude from surrounding circumstances that all occupants of house engaged in possession of marijuana).

The rulings of the courts below, suppressing this evidence, are reversed and the defendant’s motion to suppress is denied. The matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

WRIT GRANTED. STAY DENIED AS MOOT.

*

 Kimball, C.J. not participating in the decision.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Petro Stopping Centers, L.P. (the Company), that to his knowledge:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (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.

This written statement
is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                   |  |  |  |                                                                                    
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    J.A. Cardwell, Sr. (J.A. Cardwell, Sr.) Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 10, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    Edward Escudero (Edward Escudero) Chief Financial Officer and Secretary