alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 US, Polish airmen build capabilities, partnershipPublished Oct. 29, 2015
                        
                        By Senior Airman Damon Kasberg
                        
                        
                        86th Airlift Wing Public Affairs
                **POWDIZ AIR BASE, Poland (AFNS) --**
                The 86th and 182nd Airlift Wings are participating in bilateral training with the Polish Air Force here during Aviation Detachment 16-1 in support of Operation Atlantic Resolve from Oct. 12 through Nov. 6.C-130s from both wings and nearly 150 personnel took part in the flying training deployment, which focused on maintaining joint readiness, while building interoperability."It's important for us to work together and reach a similar level of training," said Polish Air Force Col. Mieczysław Gaudyn, the 33rd Air Transport Base commander. "It's also important for us to build this friendship and brotherhood, to be able to count on each other and show the world our partnership is strong."Working side by side, U.S. and Polish airmen completed a variety of training objectives including realistic night vision goggle training, fighter intercept training, and aircraft commander upgrade qualifications."This is my first time working with C-130Js and Polish pilots," said 1st Lt. Katie Maglia, a 182nd AW C-130H Hercules pilot. "It has been great for me to see all the processes and learn how to fly together. It has been good interacting with everyone. There's a lot of camaraderie, and a little friendly competition, but at the end of the day we're all Hercules pilots."The Polish C-130E Legacies were able to take part in large formations with the Air Force C-130 Hercules and C-130J Super Hercules; training that isn't normally available to them."One of the goals of the AVDET is to be able to fly our C-130s with the Poles in a formation seamlessly," said Capt. Chris Dean, a 37th Airlift Squadron C-130J Super Hercules pilot. "Flying in formation allows us to get mass on a drop zone. If there's ever an exercise or operation when we need each other, we're able to integrate and fly together."In 2011, the U.S. and Poland signed a memorandum of understanding, establishing an Air Force aviation detachment in Poland. Since 2013, U.S. military aircraft and personnel have participated in rotational deployments to Poland, performing the basis of an enduring partnership.Poland 



Operation Atlantic Resolve 



C-130
**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**

|   | (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 result of operations of the                  Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                   |                                     |                                                                  |
|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              |                                |                                                             |
| Dated:                  March 20, 2006 | By:                            | /s/ ROBERT                  E.                  MEAD   |
|                                   | Robert                    E. Mead   |
|                                   |                                     |

----
#### VANCE JOHNSON *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 22882)

Lavery, C. J., and Dranginis and Flynn, Js.

Submitted on briefs March 21

officially released April 8, 2003

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
#### Adolf Faulkner v. Wm. Warren.

(No. 80, Tex. L. J., vol. 1, p. 178.)

Appeal from Galveston County.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 658. *Rents follow the title.*Where property is sold during the time for which it is rented, it will hardly be questioned that the rents follow the title, unless, by some prior arrangement, the former owner had so incumbered the property as that possession could not be given without damage to some party.

§ 659. *Negotiable notel bought before maturity.*The purchase and possession of negotiable promissory notes would *prima facie*entitle the holder to recover and throw the burden of proof on the defendant of proving the failure of consideration and want of good faith and notice in acquiring the notes.

§ 660. *Lis penclens does not apply to negotiable instruments.*The modern doctrine is that *lis pendens*does not apply to negotiable instruments.

§ 661. *Where the case is tried by the judge without a jury.*“When a court is substituted for.a jury, its decisions upon the facts have the same conclusive effect as the verdict of the jury.” [Jordan v. Brophy, 41 Tex. 284.]

§ 662. *Notice.*It is a settled rule of law that, in general, whatever is of a character calculated to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to the facts, binds him to the consequences of the facts wdiich inquiry wrould have disclosed [1 Story’s Eq. Juris, sec. 40CC et seq.]; or, as tersely stated in Powell v. Haley, 28 Tex. 577, “ whatever is sufficient to put a party upon inquiry is notice.”

§ 663. *Evidence; conflict in.*The practice is settled that in case of conflicting evidence, or where the verdict (or judgment, instead of verdict) is not shown to be clearly wrong, the judgment will not be reversed on these grounds, as has uniformly been held. [Briscoe v. *363Bronaugh, 1 Tex. 326; Baldwin v. Gordon, 24 Tex. 288; Powell v. Haley, 28 Tex. 52.]

January 19, 1878.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 79 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 79

 Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington 
                            Soap Box Derby.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2007

  Mr. Hoyer (for himself, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. 
  Norton, Mr. Wynn, and Mr. Wolf) submitted the following concurrent 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington 
                            Soap Box Derby.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES ON CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association (in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Association'') shall be permitted to 
sponsor a public event, soap box derby races, on the Capitol Grounds on 
June 16, 2007, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
Senate may jointly designate.

SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

    The event to be carried out under this resolution shall be free of 
admission charge to the public and arranged not to interfere with the 
needs of Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect 
of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board; except that the 
Association shall assume full responsibility for all expenses and 
liabilities incident to all activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

    For the purposes of this resolution, the Association is authorized 
to erect upon the Capitol Grounds, subject to the approval of the 
Architect of the Capitol, such stage, sound amplification devices, and 
other related structures and equipment as may be required for the event 
to be carried out under this resolution.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

    The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are 
authorized to make any such additional arrangements that may be 
required to carry out the event under this resolution.

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, with respect to the event to be carried out under this 
resolution.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                               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

    Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code),
each of the undersigned officers of Cenveo, Inc., a Colorado corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's
knowledge, that:

    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006
(the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 10, 2006

                               /s/  ROBERT G. BURTON, SR.
                               ------------------------------------
                               Robert G. Burton, Sr.
                               Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 10, 2006

                               /s/  SEAN S. SULLIVAN
                               ------------------------------------
                               Sean S. Sullivan
                               Chief Financial Officer

    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 Cenveo,
Inc. and will be retained by Cenveo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

    The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being
filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF CVF TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

1.       Canadian Venture Founders
            Leasing Corporation
2.       CVF Technologies International, Inc.
3.       Eastview Marketing One LLC
4.       Grand Island Marketing Two LLC
5.       Grand Island Marketing Inc.
6.       Solaria Research Enterprises Ltd.
7.       Gemprint(TM) Corporation
8.       Biorem Technologies Inc.
9.       Dantec Corporation
10.      Petrozyme Technologies Inc.
11.      Ecoval Inc.
12.      RDM Corporation
13.      TurboSonic Technologies, Inc.
14.      NETrageous, Inc.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1472 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the deductible and 

change the method of determining the mileage reimbursement rate under 

the beneficiary travel program administered by the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2007 

Mr. BARROW (for himself, Mr. BACA, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. BOSWELL, 

Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. BOREN, and Mr. 

COURTNEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the 

deductible and change the method of determining the 

mileage reimbursement rate under the beneficiary travel 

program administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disabled Veterans 

5 Fairness Act’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1472 IH

1 SEC. 2. VETERANS BENEFICIARY TRAVEL PROGRAM. 

2 (a) ELIMINATION OF DEDUCTIBLE.—Subsection (c) 

3 of section 111 of title 38, United States Code, is repealed. 

4 (b) DETERMINATION OF MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT

5 RATE.— 

6 (1) DETERMINATION.—Paragraph (1) of sub7 section (g) of such section is amended to read as fol8 lows: 

9 ‘‘(1) In determining the amount of allowances or re10 imbursement to be paid under this section, the Secretary 

11 shall use the mileage reimbursement rates for the use of 

12 privately owned vehicles by Government employees on offi13 cial business, as prescribed by the Administrator of Gen14 eral Services under section 5707(b) of title 5, United 

15 States Code.’’. 

16 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (g) 

17 of such section is further amended by striking para18 graphs (3) and (4). 

19 (c) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—Such section is further 

20 amended by adding at the end the following new sub21 section: 

22 ‘‘(i) Funds for payments made under this section 

23 shall be appropriated separately from other amounts ap24 propriated for the Department.’’. 

25 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

26 this Act shall apply with respect to travel expenses inVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:42 Mar 13, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1472.IH H1472

bajohnson on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1472 IH

1 curred after the expiration of the 90-day period that be2 gins on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
#### J.W.E., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D10-1171.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 8, 2011.

*377James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Bruce P. Taylor, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

KHOUZAM, Judge.

J.W.E. appeals a juvenile disposition order withholding adjudication and placing him on probation. We reverse.

J.W.E. was riding his bicycle during the early evening on December 17, 2009, when he was stopped by law enforcement because his bicycle did not have lights. During the stop, the officer sought J.W.E.’s consent to search. Apparently believing he had obtained consent, the officer conducted a search of J.W.E.’s person. The search revealed marijuana. J.W.E. was charged with committing the delinquent act of possession of not more than 20 grams of marijuana based on evidence obtained during the search.

J.W.E. filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence obtained during the search, arguing that he had been illegally detained and searched. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the officer who searched J.W.E. initially testified that “he asked permission to search [J.W.E.] and [J.W.E.] replied in the affirmative yes.” The officer thereafter explained: “I said ‘Do you mind if I search you?’ And he said yes.”

The court denied the motion to suppress.1 J.W.E. then entered a plea to the delinquent act of misdemeanor possession of marijuana, reserving the right to appeal the dispositive ruling.

Here, the justification for the search was the consent exception to the warrant requirement. But, as in *V.H. v. State,*908 So.2d 321 (Fla.2d DCA 2005), the officer’s testimony at J.W.E.’s suppression hearing did not unequivocally establish that J.W.E. consented to the warrantless search. Indeed, the officer’s testimony that J.W.E. answered “yes” when asked “Do you mind if I search you,” tended to establish that J.W.E. did not consent. Because the evidence did not unequivocally establish J.W.E.’s consent, the motion to suppress should have been granted.

Reversed.

WHATLEY and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.

1

. We appreciate the court’s thoughtful analysis in addressing the multiple arguments raised during the hearing on the motion to suppress.
Exhibit 15.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-102605) pertaining to securities offered under the Employee Stock Option Plan
of United Microelectronics Corporation of our report dated June 10, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of United Microelectronics Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2004.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Diwan, Ernst & Young
|                        
|Diwan, Ernst & Young    
|                        
|Taipei, Taiwan,         
|                        
|Republic of China       
|                        
|June 29, 2005
Exhibit 31.2

Certifications

I, Edward Escudero, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Petro Stopping Centers, L.P.;

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(s) 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 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(s) 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 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: November 13, 2006              
|                                     
|/s/ Edward Escudero                  
|(Edward Escudero)                    
|Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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,
James S.J. Manuso, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
SuperGen, Inc.

| |  | By:    |  | /s/JAMES S.J. MANUSO                                               
| |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Name:  |  | James S.J. Manuso                                                  
| |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

I,
Michael Molkentin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
SuperGen, Inc. on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of SuperGen, Inc.

| |  | By:    |  | /s/MICHAEL MOLKENTIN                                                
| |  | ------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Name:  |  | Michael Molkentin                                                   
| |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

---



QuickLinks
#### In re Appeal from DISCIPLINARY BOARD DECISION NO. 10-PDB-120.

No. 2011-OB-1856.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Reed, Ellis; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal from Disciplinary Board Decision No. 10-PDB-120.

Leave to appeal denied.