alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 100-plus aircraft fly in for exercise Red Flag 16-3Published July 20, 2016
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Julius Delos Reyes
                        
                        
                        50th Space Wing Public Affairs
                **NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFNS) --**
                The three-week long Red Flag 16-3, a U.S.-only exercise that tests all participating units’ combat capabilities in a joint environment that centers on multi-domain integration, kicked off here July 11. 
Red Flag is the service’s premier air-to-air combat training exercise and one of a series of advanced training programs administered by the U.S. Air Force Warfare Center and executed through the 414th Combat Training Squadron. Previous Red Flag exercises have provided experiences to master the air domain, but todays’ exercises must incorporate all domains.
“We fly, fight and win in air, space and cyberspace. This is the exercise where we’ll put this to the test,” said Col. DeAnna Burt, the Red Flag 16-3 Air Expeditionary Wing commander.  
Burt is the first space domain leader to ever command an AEW at a Red Flag exercise, a position that has traditionally been staffed by aviators. She will lead the joint operation into accomplishing its main objective of “establishing habits of achieving multi-domain combat success today to enable the rapid defeat of America’s adversaries tomorrow.”
As an AEW commander, Burt will be focused on multi-domain execution and will be engaging participants to determine how they plan to utilize the capabilities of all domains to supplement a tactical mission.
“We want to force people out of their comfort zone. We’ll be pushing them to talk about kinetic and non-kinetic effects and how when they are synchronized achieve tactical success,” the colonel explained.
Historically, the exercise’s third iteration of the year is a U.S.-only operation. This year, 115 aircraft from 25 Defense Department units will be operating at the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), the Air Force’s premier military training area with more than 15,000 square miles of airspace and 2.9 million acres of land. And for the first time, an F-35 Lightning II is participating in the exercise. The aircraft is from the, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, based at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona.
Red Flag 16-3 participants are faced with 1,900 possible targets, realistic threat systems and an opposing enemy force that cannot be replicated anywhere else in the world. Nellis Air Force Base and the NTTR are the home of a simulated battlefield, providing combat air forces the ability to train to fight together in a peacetime environment, and to survive and win together.*(Some information compiled from a Nellis Air Force Base news release.)*red flag 



nellis afb 



f-16 



training
#### STATE ex rel. Eric John GUILBEAU v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0148.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Guilbeau, Eric John; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 02K0928; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01068.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          31,187
<SECURITIES>                                     9,925
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,047
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,288
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,856
<PP&E>                                          29,220
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,772
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,999
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           218
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,849
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   129,067
<SALES>                                         21,238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,293
<CGS>                                            2,680
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,822
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,076
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   196
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (463)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (177)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (605)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (286)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.0

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
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 of Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc. (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge and belief: (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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Austin L. Roberts, III                                 
|Austin L. Roberts, III President and CEO                   
|                                                           
|/s/ Deborah M. Evans                                       
|Deborah M. Evans, Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer

March 22, 2007



59
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            4302
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,738
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,976
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,547
<PP&E>                                         139,497
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 244,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,366
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   244,840
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               199,700
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,178
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,790
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                18,838
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,357
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,403
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,346
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,057
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,057
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80


</TABLE>
#### Masoud FARZAD, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 86-4133.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 15, 1987.

*1072Brian K. Bates, Eugenio Cazorla, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner.

David J. Kline, Thomas W. Hussey, Attys., Allen W. Hausman, Madelyn E. Johnson, Asst. Directors, Robert L. Bombough, Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Div., Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Ronald Chandler, Dallas, Tex., David Lambert, New Orleans, La, Dist. Directors, I.N.S., for other interested parties.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GARWOOD, and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Masoud Farzad asserts that we applied an overly restrictive standard of proof in reviewing the denial of his application for asylum and suspension of deportation. We disagree. He also asserts that this court failed to act on his request for reinstatement of voluntary departure. Farzad contends that this court can and should reinstate the period of voluntary departure granted him by the Board of Immigration Appeals. He correctly notes that we did not rule on the request.

It is not necessary in this case to reach the issue of whether this court agrees with the Ninth Circuit that we lack the authority to grant voluntary departure relief. *See Contreras-Aragon v. I.N.S.,*789 F.2d 777 (9th Cir.1986). Farzad waited twenty-nine of the thirty days allowed him for voluntary departure before initiating the present appeal. While the Board faced confusing court precedent in the area involved, it did not fail to make a clearly correct ruling in Farzad’s case. There is no legal or equitable persuasion for this court to augment the administrative remedy already available to Farzad of applying to the district director to grant an extension of voluntary departure. Our mention of this procedure should not be read to intimate any view on the outcome of such an application.

Farzad cites *Matter of Chouliaris,*16 I & N Dec. 168 (BIA 1977), in which the Board of Immigration Appeals reinstated an alien’s voluntary departure. The Board has delegated to it the authority of the Attorney General. *See*8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d); *cf.*8 C.F.R. § 3.1(b)(2). Therefore, *Chouliaris*is no authority for determining whether the judiciary may reinstate voluntary departure.

The petition for rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35) the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2143

JEREMY BREYON HUDSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HAMPTON ROADS SHIPPING ASSOCIATION-ILA; ILA #970,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 22-2144

JEREMY BREYON HUDSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HAMPTON ROADS SHIPPING ASSOCIATION-ILA; ILA #970,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00464-AWA-DEM; 2:21-cv00466-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: September 7, 2023 Decided: November 7, 2023

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2143 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy Breyon Hudson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2143 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM: 

Jeremy Breyon Hudson appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil 

actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).*

 We have reviewed the records and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Hudson v. Hampton 

Rds. Shipping Ass’n, Nos. 2:21-cv-00464-AWA-DEM; 2:21-cv-00466-AWA-DEM (E.D. 

Va. Nov. 3, 2022). We deny Hudson’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

* The district court also concluded that dismissal of the actions was warranted solely 

on the basis of Hudson’s failure to comply with the court’s show cause orders. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2143 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2291
EPHRAIM U. ETOKIE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE DISABILITY ACTION CENTER, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-02-1701-3) Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 27, 2004 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ephraim U. Etokie, Appellant Pro Se. Herbert E. Buhl, III, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ephraim U. Etokie appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge granting summary judgment to his former employer in his civil action alleging discrimination under various statutes. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Etokie v. The Disability Action Ctr., Inc. , No. CA-02-1701-3 (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 23.01**
*CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM*
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following registration statements of ourreports dated February 24, 2005, relating to the financial statements and financial statementschedules of Hartford Life, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes anexplanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s change in its method of accounting and reportingfor certain nontraditional long-duration contracts and for separate accounts in 2004) appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004.   Form S-3 Registration Nos. Form S-8 Registration Nos.333-21865 333-28805333-56283 333-28807333-60944 333-34076
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, February 8, 2010, 6:30 p.m. to February 10, 2010, 12 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 26, 2010, 75 FR 4093.                

                    This                     **Federal Register**                     Notice is being amended to change the location of the Experimental Therapeutics Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meeting location to the NIH Campus, 6th Floor, Conference Room 7, C Wing, Building 31 instead of the Hyatt Regency Bethesda Hotel. The start and end times have also been changed to 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. instead of 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.                

Dated: January 28, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-2440 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **236 4** 

JOHN M. DICKSON, JR. , P laintiff

- Appell ant ,
v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PARKER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER T. ELLIOT; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER D. SMITH; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER E. GASTON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER S. PIERSON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER NOVACK; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CHELSEA BRUNSON, Estate/Deceased; SERGEANT S. WHITEHEAD; REGISTERED NURSE P. JOHNSON; REGISTERED NURSE GAINEY; REGISTERED NURSE JANE DOE; NURSE PRACTITIONER RALPH AL BASEAU; DOCTOR N. KOLONGO; CAPTAIN T. D. HATCHETT; CAPTAIN E. TAYLOR; SERGEANT L. NICHOLS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER K. EDMMONDS , Defendant s – Appell ees . Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebe cca Beach Smith , District Judge. ( 2 : 1 0

- c v - 0 0 13 4

- RBS

- DEM )

Submitted : May 2 6 , 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING , SHEDD, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and d ismiss ed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion
.
John M. Dickson, Jr
. , Appellant Pro Se
. Samuel Lawrence Dumville, NORRIS, ST. CLAIR & LOTKIN, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Kenneth Abrams, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee s .2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: John M . Dickson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and his subsequent motions for extension of time to file a notice of appeal and for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Parties ar e accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order denying relief on Dickson’s § 1983 complaint was entered on November 2, 2010. Dickson filed his notice of appeal on December 6, 2010. Because Dickson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. With respect to the district court’s order denying Dickson’s motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal and his motion for reconsideration, Dickson’s notice s of appeal were timely filed. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. A ccordingly, we affirm for the reasons4 stated by the district court. Dickson v. Parker , No. 2:10

— cv 00 134

- RBS

- DEM (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 1, 2011 & entered Feb. 2, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately p resented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1470 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1470

   To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs 
 Enhancement Act of 2001 to require the provision of chiropractic care 
and services to veterans at all Department of Veterans Affairs medical 
                                centers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 12, 2007

  Mr. Filner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs 
 Enhancement Act of 2001 to require the provision of chiropractic care 
and services to veterans at all Department of Veterans Affairs medical 
                                centers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chiropractic Care Available to All 
Veterans Act''.

SEC. 2. PROGRAM FOR PROVISION OF CHIROPRACTIC CARE AND SERVICES TO 
              VETERANS.

    Section 204(c) of the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care 
Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 (38 U.S.C. 1710 note) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The program''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) The program shall be carried out at not fewer than 75 medical 
centers by not later than December 31, 2009, and at all medical centers 
by not later than December 31, 2011.''.
                                 <all>
```