alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Polar Growl strengthens allied interoperability, bomber navigation skillsPublished April 6, 2015
                        
                        
                        U.S. Strategic Command Public Affairs
                **OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE, Neb. --**
                Two pairs of B-52 Stratofortresses completed simultaneous, round-trip sorties from their U.S. bases of Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, and Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, to the Arctic and North Sea regions, respectively, April 3.
The training mission, coined Polar Growl, allowed the aircrews to hone their navigation skills and enhance their ability to work with allied partners, while demonstrating U.S. Strategic Command capacity.
"These flights, demonstrating the credible and flexible ability of our strategic bomber force in internationally-recognized flight information regions, are the culmination of months of planning and coordination," said Adm. Cecil D. Haney, the STRATCOM commander. "They are one of many ways we demonstrate interoperability, compliance with national and international protocols, and due regard for the safety of all aircraft sharing the air space."
Each of the two legs of Polar Growl provided unique training opportunities, all while testing the bomber force's command and control apparatus' ability to support two synchronized flight paths. The bomber crews flying the North Sea route participated in dissimilar air intercept maneuvers with fighter aircraft flown by the Royal Canadian air force, Royal Air Force and Royal Netherlands air force. In addition to conducting dissimilar air intercept maneuvers with Royal Canadian air force fighters, bomber crews on the Arctic leg of the mission transited around the North Pole, providing the crews invaluable training in polar navigation.
"Today's dynamic global security environment is an interdependent world where international partnerships are foundational," Haney said. "Exercises and operations such as these bomber flights enable and enhance relationships with our allies and partners, and allow others to understand what capabilities U.S. Strategic Command brings to the equation."
The U.S. regularly conducts combined training and theater security cooperation engagements with coalition partners. The combined training provided in Polar Growl follows the participation of B-52s in NATO exercise Noble Justification in October 2014, and the deployment of B-52s and B-2 Spirits to RAF Fairford, United Kingdom, in June 2014.
"The long-range nature of the mission, coupled with the opportunity to interact in real-time with allied aircraft was an invaluable experience that simply can't be replicated out of the cockpit," said Maj. Nathan Barnhart, a 343rd Bomb Squadron instructor radar navigator. "Training like this ensures we are ready to respond to any and all mission directives across the globe."Polar Growl 



interoperability 



B-52 Stratofortresses
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,302,389
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     137,887,613
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            11,556,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 44,066,442
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      43,649,308
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        44,066,442
<LOANS>                                    104,202,928
<ALLOWANCE>                                    860,709
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             168,725,484
<DEPOSITS>                                 149,604,806
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            428,560
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,754,130
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,937,988
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              18,692,118
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              9,390,600
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,385,736
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               390,144
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            12,166,480
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           6,203,107
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,224,844
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,941,636
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  202,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               2,806
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,375,265
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,607,857
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,607,857
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,959,832
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.69
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.84
<LOANS-NON>                                    126,034
<LOANS-PAST>                                 1,576,996
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                23,500
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,020,104
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  368,190
<RECOVERIES>                                     6,295
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              860,709
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           860,709
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0





</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-07-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                         239,979
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  608,729
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,083,078
<PP&E>                                         340,943
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,731
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,034,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          996,630
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,790
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,960,529
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,034,584
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,751,710
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,471,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,355,958
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,641
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,075,757)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,075,757)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,075,757)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.29)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21

                   CHORUS COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, LTD.

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE CORPORATION

The subsidiaries of the Chorus Communications Group, Ltd.and their subsidiaries
are listed below.


               NAME                                STATE OF INCORPORATION

Mid-Plains, Inc.                                         Wisconsin

**Mid-Plains Communications Systems, Inc.                Wisconsin

MPC of Illinois                                          Illinois

PCS Wisconsin, LLC.                                      Wisconsin

Pioneer Communications, Inc.                             Wisconsin

The Farmers Telephone Company                            Wisconsin

Dickeyville Telephone Corporation                        Wisconsin

Chorus Properties, LLC.                                  Wisconsin

*Executive Systems & Software, Inc.
   d/b/a The ComputerPLUS                                Wisconsin

*IntraNet, Inc.                                          Wisconsin



 

 * On January 1, 1999, these entities were merged into Mid-Plains Communication
   Systems, Inc. (MPCS).
** On January 1, 1999, MPCS changed its name to Chorus Networks, Inc.
<PAGE>   1
(a) Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings per common share and Earnings per
                 common share assuming dilution


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               Three Months
                                                                   Ended
                                                              March 31, 1998
                                                              --------------
                                                (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

Earnings per common share
<S>                                                              <C>       
     Net income available to common shareholders                 $    1,831
                                                                 ==========
     Weighted average common shares outstanding                   5,055,036
                                                                 ==========
     Earnings per common share                                   $      .36
                                                                 ==========
Earnings per common share assuming dilution

     Net income available to common shareholders                 $    1,831
                                                                 ==========
     Weighted average common shares outstanding                   5,055,036

     Add:  Dilutive effects of assumed exercises of
             stock options and warrants                             620,870
                                                                 ----------
     Weighted average common and dilutive potential
             Common shares outstanding                            5,675,906
                                                                 ==========
     Earnings per common share assuming dilution                 $      .32
                                                                 ==========
</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 McConnell EOD team assists local sherriff’s departmentPublished Aug. 12, 2016
                        
                        By Senior Airman Tara Fadenrecht
                        
                        
                        22nd Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs
                **MCCONNELL AIR FORCE BASE, Kan. (AFNS) --**
                When a backpack containing a potentially dangerous explosive device was handed over to authorities, the Marion County Sheriff's Department knew exactly who to call.The 22nd Civil Engineer Squadron explosive ordnance disposal team received a call requesting assistance the afternoon of Aug. 8. After talking with the sheriff’s department and gathering more information, two EOD specialists were on the road with all their equipment headed to Marion County.“Based on the information from the sheriff’s department about the situation leading to their custody of the munition item, positive identification of the fuse, and its type by function, as well as the item’s history of movement and transfer between multiple individuals, I was able to make a threat assessment of the situation,” said Staff Sgt. James Burnett, the NCO in charge of supply for the 22nd CES EOD.The EOD team determined that the ordnance item was a World War I-era artillery projectile and was safe to handle but continued with operations to destroy the object by first conducting an X-ray.“The X-ray was used to verify the contents of the casing and identify if any sign of tampering was present due to the nature of the item’s past owner,” Burnett said.Once the X-ray was completed, Burnett drew a detailed sketch of the item, noting the dimensions and small details, before taking the ordnance to be destroyed.“The safest action (was) to transport the item to the remote disposal location and render the unserviceable item free of all explosive hazards in the interest of public safety,” he said.This was the second time in nearly two weeks that the 22nd CES have responded to a call within Marion County.“(McConnell’s EOD team) responds well,” said Marion County Sheriff Robert Craft. “Last time we needed it, (they) responded quickly and efficiently, and I didn’t have to worry anymore.”The 22nd CES EOD team regularly responds to similar calls from authorities throughout Kansas, requesting their expertise in military ordnance and assistance with disposal.McConnell AFB 



AMC 



EOD 



community
#### In re LOUISIANA JUDICIARY COMMISSION NO. 10-7427.

No. 2010-O-2458.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2011.

In re Johnson, Elfrida W.; —Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated January 7, 2011 and April 8, 2011; Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, No. 10-7427.

Second application for reconsideration not considered. Judgment is final. See La.CodeCiv.P. art. 2167. No further filings shall be accepted in this matter.
#### Sebastien J. MOROSE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 5D11-2068.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Oct. 7, 2011.

Sebastien J. Morose, Bushnell, pro se.

Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion will be filed with the lower court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the judgment and sentence in Case No. 2009-CF-006953, in the Circuit Court in and for Orange County. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

ORFINGER, C.J., PALMER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Order entered November 12 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 00518 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 00519 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 00520 - CR MICHAEL WAYNE CAMPBE LL JR, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judici al District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F12 - 31211 - Q , F12 - 31218 - Q, F12 - 31219 - Q 

### O RDER The Court REINSTATE S the appeals. On October 24, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the reporter’s record has not been filed. On November 11, 2014, appellant filed a motion to dismiss his appeals. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.2(a). Accordingly, we VACATE the October 24, 2014 order requiring findings. We will dispose of the motion to dismiss the appeals in due course. /s/ CAR OLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
NUMBER 13-21-00254-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

NINFA SOLIZ, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE.

On appeal from the 156th District Court

of Live Oak County, Texas.

O R D E R

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Ninfa Soliz, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from her

conviction in trial court cause number LCR210049. The trial court’s certification of the 

defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an 

appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of 

appeal is not made a part of the record. Id. R. 25.2(d); see id. R. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. The 

purpose of the certification requirement is to efficiently sort appealable cases from non-
2

appealable cases so that appealable cases can “move through the system unhindered 

while eliminating, at an early stage, the time and expense associated with nonappealable cases.” Greenwell v. Ct. of Apps. for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 159 S.W.3d 

645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 912 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Within thirty days of this notice, appellant’s counsel, Darice Shaw, is hereby 

ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether appellant has a right to 

appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to whether appellant 

has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the existence of any amended 

certification. 

If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant has a right to appeal, counsel is 

further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within thirty days of this notice, 

identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant has a right to appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 44.4; Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614–15 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005); see also, e.g., Carroll v. State, 119 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 

2003, no pet.) (certification form provided in appendix to appellate rules may be 

modified to reflect that defendant has right of appeal under circumstances not 

addressed by the form). The motion must include an analysis of the applicable case 

law, and any factual allegations therein must be true and supported by the record. See 

Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 614–15; cf. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that recitations in 

the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of record 

documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting 
3

appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1,

10.2.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on this

16th day of August, 2021.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                          Accompanying Form 10-K Report
                            of First Industrial, L.P.
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
              (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(a) and (b))

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63,
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(a) and (b)), each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, to his knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2002 of First Industrial, L.P. (the "Company") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: March 19, 2003                     ___/s/Michael W. Brennan_____
                                          Michael W. Brennan
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.

Dated: March 19, 2003                     ___/s/Michael J. Havala_______
                                          Michael J. Havala
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Justin JARRELL.

No. 2011-KK-2350.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Jarrell, Justin; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 495-707; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1260.

Denied.
#### Sylvania BRANDON, Appellant, v. Wellington Royce THOMAS, Appellee.

No. 1D10-1457.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 15, 2011.

Albert T. Franson of Franson & Iseley, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

REVERSED and REMANDED. *See Skyline Outdoor Commc’ns, Inc. v. James,*903 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

ROBERTS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,928
<SECURITIES>                                     5,042
<RECEIVABLES>                                  332,399
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,763
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,732
<PP&E>                                          13,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 428,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,488
<BONDS>                                        299,537
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              469
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   428,293
<SALES>                                         61,143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,143
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,319
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,364
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,027
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,567)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,665)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,902)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,902)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.43)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 17.1

Letter of Resignation of Christopher L. Morin

February 22, 2006

Board of Directors

Noble International, Ltd.

28213 Van Dyke Ave.

Warren, MI 48093

Dear Members:

Please accept this letter as notification of my resignation as an Officer and Director of Noble International,
Ltd., and its subsidiaries, effective February 24, 2006. As you know, I will be staying on as a consultant to the Company. My resignation from the Board is for personal reasons. It has been a pleasure working with each of you and I wish the
Company much success.



Very truly yours,/S/ CHRISTOPHER L. MORINChristopher L. Morin
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Giles McGHEE.

No. 2011-KO-0062.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re McGhee, Giles; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 149167-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-583.

Denied.