alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Kadena's communication squadron earns 4 AF-level awardsPublished May 1, 2015
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Zackary A. Henry
                        
                        
                        18th Wing Public Affairs
                **KADENA AIR BASE, Japan (AFNS) --**
                Kadena Air Base’s 18th Communications Squadron was recently awarded four different Air Force-level awards.
Among the awards received were two individual Air Force-level winners, Senior Master Sgt. Harold Terrance and Staff Sgt. Jack Schultz.
Schultz, a 18th CS client systems journeyman, won the 2014 Air Force Information Dominance Outstanding Client Systems Airman of the Year award for his outstanding performance, at Kadena and while deployed, as well as for his community outreach efforts to bridge language barriers in Okinawa, Japan.
Terrance, a former 18th CS cyber systems section chief, won the 2014 Air Force Outstanding Cyberspace Operations Senior NCO of the Year.
He led the Pacific Air Force's largest communications flight in executing over 16,000 system upgrades and headed the Air Force's first 24/7 cyber patching service which eliminated over 113,000 network risks.
"Although I appreciate the prestige of this award, I know that it also reflects the hard work and dedication of all the men and women of the 18th CS," Terrance said. "It's truly an honor to be a part of such an awesome team." 
One of the other Air Force-level awards earned by the 18th CS was the best large post office for the second consecutive year. One of the senior leaders of the post office, Senior Master Sgt. David L. Braun, the 18th CS postal operations superintendent, said it took commitment to put the team first and to each individual on the team.
"We are a strong team, and strong teams focus on the strengths of each other not the faults," Braun said. "This built an atmosphere of appreciation for one another." 
Braun also said that this award is the result of not just his leadership, but leadership at all levels.
Kadena's post office oversaw PACAF's busiest finance section. They conducted 24 audits with $3.5 million in revenue and processed 23 million pounds of postage throughout the year.
The 18th CS was named the Air Force's best large communications unit, this was their second consecutive year for the award.
This year, the 18th CS bolstered the best overall command cyber readiness inspection score in the Air Force and the best secret internet protocol router CCRI score in the Air Force as well.
One of the senior leaders, Chief Master Sgt. Rongi R. Langham, the 18th CS superintendent, accredited this award to the strong leadership, teamwork and Airmen confidence throughout the squadron.
"Our Airmen are stakeholders in the squadron," Langham said. "Success is driven by their work ethic and dedication to be the best in the Air Force."PACAF 



award 



communications 



Kadena AB
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PointTherapeutics, Inc. (“Point”) for the three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald R. Kiepert, Jr., ChiefExecutive 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 to my knowledge: 

(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 conditions and results of operations ofPoint. 

Dated: November 9, 2006 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Point Therapeutics, Inc.(“Point”) for the three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard N. Small, 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 to my knowledge: 

(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 conditions and results of operations of Point. 

Dated: November 9, 2006 

 

A signed original of these written statements required by Section 906 has been providedto Point Therapeutics, Inc. and will be retained by Point Therapeutics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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, 2009 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 30, 2010



57
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of United Microelectronics Corporation (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jackson Hu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 9, 2007



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Jackson Hu         
|Name:  |  | Jackson Hu             
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer



|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1
#### G. H. & S. A. R’y Co. v. Terry O’Neal.

(No. 6186.)

Appeal from Uvalde County.

Clark & Old, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 86. *Railroad companies; liability of for killing stock when road is fenced; right of to obstruct third-class roads with gates, etc.*Appellee recovered judgment against appellant for $120, the alleged value of two cattle, his property, killed by the engine and cars of appellant. It appears from the evidence that the cattle were killed at a point where a public road crossed the line of appellant’s railway, said crossing *being in*an inclosure owned by appellee. Appellant’s line of railway was fenced on both sides, except at the point of said public road crossing. Said public road was a third-class road, and said crossing was the only one over appellant’s railway inside said inclosure. A jury was waived, and the cause was tried by the judge, who prepared and filed in the cause his conclusions of fact and law. His first conclusion of law is that appellant was guilty of negligence in not erecting gates at said public road crossing. We think this conclusion is erroneous. Appellant had no right to obstruct said public road with gates. Appellee, being the owner of the land over which said public road passed, had such right, but the statute confers no such right on appellant. [R. S., art. 4389.] It was not negligence, therefore, on the part of appellant to fail to erect gates across said public road. Article 4245 of the Revised Statutes, requiring railroad. companies to fence their roads, does not apply to such places as public necessity or convenience require to be left unfenced, as the crossings of highways and other like places. [Railway Co. v. Cocke. 64 Tex. 151; Railway Co. v. Dunham, 68 Tex. *129231.] In addition to said erroneous conclusion of law, the trial judge concluded, as a matter of fact, that the killing of the cattle was the result of negligence on the part of appellant’s employees in operating the engine and cars. This conclusion of fact is not warranted by the evidence before us. On the contrary, the evidence shows that ordinary care was used to prevent injury to the bull, and there is not a particle of evidence showing negligence as to the other animal killed. Because the judgment is contrary to law and not warranted by the evidence it is reversed, and the cause remanded.

April 23, 1890.

Reversed and remanded..
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 Nos. 333-35774, 333-90734 and
333-106012) pertaining to the PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED Second Amended and Restated 1995 Stock Plan, as amended, and Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of
our report dated January 23, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2003.



Boston,
Massachusetts
March 11, 2004

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  registration  statement on
Form S-8 of Unified  Financial  Services,  Inc. and  subsidiaries  (registration
number  333-53863)  of  our  report  dated  February  3,  2004  relating  to the
consolidated  statement of financial  condition for Unified Financial  Services,
Inc. and  subsidiaries  as of December 31,  2003,  and the related  consolidated
statements  of  operations,  stockholders'  equity,  and cash flows for the year
ended December 31, 2003, which appears in the December 31, 2003 Annual Report to
Stockholders on Form 10-K of Unified Financial Services, Inc. and subsidiaries.


/s/ J. D. Cloud & Co. L. L. P.
Cincinnati, Ohio
February 27, 2004
#### STATE ex rel. Kevin LOVE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0128.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Love, Kevin; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 483-327; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1475.

Denied. Moot.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                             STATE OF INCORPORATION
NAME                                                                                      ASSUMED NAMES
------------------------------------------------------     ---------------------------    ----------------------------------

<S>                                                         <C>                           <C>
Noble Component Technologies, Inc.*                                 Michigan
Monroe Engineering Products, Inc.                                   Michigan
Cass River Coatings, Inc.*                                          Michigan              Vassar Industries
Skandy Corp.                                                        Michigan
Utilase Production Process, Inc.                                    Michigan
Noble Metal Forming, Inc.                                           Michigan
Noble Metal Processing, Inc.                                        Michigan
Noble Land Holdings, Inc.                                           Michigan
Noble Canada, Inc.*                                             Ontario, Canada
Noble Canada II, Inc.*                                          Ontario, Canada
Tiercon Plastics, Inc.*                                         Ontario, Canada
Tiercon Coatings, Inc.*                                         Ontario, Canada
Noble Metal Processing-Midwest, Inc.                                Michigan
Noble Canada Holdings Limited*                                Nova Scotia, Canada
Noble Canada Holdings II Limited*                             Nova Scotia, Canada
Noble Components & Systems, Inc.                                    Michigan
Noble Technologies, Inc.                                            Michigan
Noble Metal Processing Canada, Inc.                             Ontario, Canada
Tiercon Industries, Inc.*                                       Ontario, Canada
Assured Transportation and Delivery, Inc.                          California
Central Transportation and Delivery, Inc.                           Delaware
Noble Logistics Services, Inc.                                      Michigan
DSI Holdings, Inc.                                                   Texas
Noble Holdings, Inc.                                                Michigan

</TABLE>
-------------
* Former subsidiaries of the Company which were disposed of in connection with
the Tiercon Sale.
#### Karen J. CALLOWAY f/k/a Karen Johnson Tawil, Appellant, v. Nabil TAWIL, n/k/a Nick Tawil, Appellee.

No. 5D10-2972.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Oct. 14, 2011.

William S. Graessle, of William S. Graes-sle, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Catherine G. Swain, of Catherine G. Swain, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN and TORPY, JJ., concur.

EVANDER, J., concurs specially, with opinion.

EVANDER, J.,

concurring specially.

The mother appeals from an order granting the father’s supplemental petition for modification. The order had the effect of transferring majority timesharing with the parties’ minor child to the father. Because there was substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s decision, I agree that an affirmance is required. I write only to address the trial court’s decision to permit the parties’ sixteen-year-old child to remain in the courtroom during the testimony of the mother and the court-appointed psychologist.

In overruling the mother’s objection to the presence of the child in the courtroom, the trial judge stated: “Once he’s been released as a witness, he’s a member of the public just like anybody else.” The trial judge’s decision was in contravention of Florida Rule of Family Procedure 12.407.1 That rule prohibits the attendance of the minor child at a hearing unless there has been a showing of good cause. While there may have been good cause to permit this minor child to testify, the record is devoid of a justifiable reason to have the child hear the testimony of his mother and the court-appointed psychologist in this exceedingly contentious trial.

*935It is also noteworthy that Florida courts have recognized that, except in extreme circumstances, a parent has the obligation to encourage a positive relationship between the minor child and the other parent. *See Schutz v. Schutz,*581 So.2d 1290 (Fla.1991); *Marcus v. Marcus,*902 So.2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); *Levy v. Levy,*861 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); *see also*§ 61.13(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010) (demonstrated capacity and disposition of parent to facilitate and encourage close and continuing parent-child relationship is factor for court to consider in determination of time-sharing schedule). Yet, in this case, the mother was compelled to give testimony in the presence of her minor child — even where her testimony included allegations of severe misconduct by the father. I would suggest that in disputed family law cases, it would be a rare situation in which it would be appropriate to permit a minor child (who has the mental capacity to understand common speech) to be present during the testimony of one of the child’s parents.

1

. No minor child shall be deposed or brought to a deposition, brought to court to appear as a witness or to attend a hearing, or subpoenaed to appear at a hearing without prior order of the court based on good cause shown unless in an emergency situation. This provision shall not apply to uncontested adoption proceedings.

Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.407.
#### Nasario D. MARTINEZ, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Levi ROMERO, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 79-2262.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 22, 1980.

Decided Feb. 9, 1981.

*1152William Deaton, Federal Public Defender, and R. Raymond Twohig, Jr., Asst. Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, N.M. for petitioner-appellant.

Before BARRETT, McKAY and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed.R. App.P. 34(a); Tenth Circuit R. 10(e). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Appellant was convicted by a jury of trafficking in heroin and was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 to 50 years. On appeal, appellant contends that various procedural irregularities deprived him of a fair trial. These alleged irregularities can be summarized as follows: prejudicial delay, coercive jury polling, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.

Appellant alleged that, prior to his § 2254 petition, he exhausted all his state remedies. The New Mexico Attorney General, however, responded that, to his knowledge, appellant’s state Rule 57 motion to vacate—a post-conviction attack filed in April of 1979 and based on the claims now before us—“has not been acted upon.” We have no record of this post-conviction attack or of its disposition in the New Mexico courts. The magistrate, whose findings the district court adopted, in full, did not address this exhaustion problem. The district court on remand must inquire into and make specific findings as to whether appellant has exhausted his state remedies.

Accordingly, the cause is partially remanded for a determination of whether state remedies have been exhausted. Upon completion of those proceedings, the clerk of the district court shall promptly certify to this court the record of those proceedings as a supplemental record on appeal. Jurisdiction is retained for all other purposes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MATTHEW MILTON BEYERS
, Appellant,

v.

BEVERLY L. POOLE
, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 1849

[ February 7, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County; Lauren M. Alperstein, Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE

- 16

- 004853.

Paul E . Gifford of T he Law Office of Paul E. Gifford Chartered, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant

.

Gabrielle D ’ Agostino of Gabrielle D’Agostino, P.A., Boynton Beach, for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.

We affirm without prejudice for Appellant to file a facially sufficient petition pursuant to c hapter 39, Florida Statutes , in the trial court

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER
, D AMOORGIAN and F ORST
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Gregory S. TOWNLEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-4818.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 15, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 2010.

Gregory S. Townley, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

WEBSTER, LEWIS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
News United States Air Force
 SecDef makes surprise calls to Malmstrom AFB officersPublished Feb. 1, 2014
                        
                        By Josh Aycock
                        
                        
                        341st Missile Wing Public Affairs
                **MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, Mont. (AFNS) --**
                Flying back to Washington D.C. from the Munich Security Conference aboard an E-4B aircraft, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel made a series of surprise phone calls to six officers currently pulling alert duty in three of the 341st Missile Wing's launch control centers here.
In a series of candid conversations that lasted approximately one hour, Hagel expressed his confidence in their ability to carry out the nuclear mission to members of the 10th, 12th and 490th Missile Squadrons. He also took time to listen to their concerns and said he deeply appreciates their critical service to the nation.
"Secretary Hagel asked how I felt about everything that's going on and I told him the workload has increased and it's hard to see friends involved," said 1st Lt. Jordan Seibert, a 12th MS missile combat crew commander. "It was really humbling, and it showed that our mission is on his mind."
The officers relayed to the secretary that they hoped the nuclear review he ordered will result in improvements for the ICBM career field.
"I was able to express to him personally that I feel optimistic about potential changes in how we're tested," said Capt. Adam Ross, a 490th MS missile combat crew commander. "More importantly, I'm optimistic about how we can find new ways to interpret the results of our testing."
Hagel thanked the missileers for dealing with a higher operational tempo and more time on alert given the ongoing investigation. He encouraged them to continue carrying out their mission in support of strategic deterrence.
"The SecDef showed concern for the crew force's personal life impacts, with the understanding that we are being called upon to complete a higher ops tempo to complete our mission," said 1st Lt. Tracie Davis, a 10th MS missile combat crew commander. "It really showed interest in us for him to take his personal time to connect with the force. He absolutely achieved his goal to connect and show concern for this mission and its people."
For one member, it was definitely an alert duty shift to remember.
"The call was surprising and really cool," said 2nd Lt. James Hunter III, a 10th MS deputy missile combat crew commander, who was in the midst of completing his first alert shift. "It's something I will never forget -- eye opening."SecDEF 



Chuck Hagel 



ICBM Related Links
        Biography - Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel