alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## About the Authors

**Admiral William A. Owens** is the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From July 1992 to December 1993, he directed the post-Cold War restructuring of the U.S. Navy, serving as the first Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Resources, Warfare Requirements and Assessments (N8). He holds degrees from the U.S. Naval Academy and Oxford University. 

**Dr. Stuart E. Johnson** is currently the Director of Research of the Institute for National Strategic Studies of the National Defense University. He has part-time teaching appointments at the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs and at the George Washington University Elliot School of International Affairs. 

**Dr. Martin C. Libicki** is a senior fellow of the Advanced Command Technologies program, INSS. He is a specialist in the application of information technologies to national security issues. He has written extensively on information warfare, information technology standards, and the revolution in military affairs. 

**Paul Bracken** is Professor of Political Science and Professor of International Business, Yale University. He is the author of *The Command and Control of Nuclear Forces: Reforging European Security* (with Kurt Gottfried), *The Diffusion of Advanced Weaponry,*and many journal articles on European defense, Asian security, and defense planning. 

**Dr. David Alberts** is currently the Director of Advanced Concepts, Technologies, and Information Strategies Directorate (ACTIS) at INSS, National Defense University. ACTIS houses both the Center for Advanced Concepts and Technology (ACT) and the School of Information Warfare and Strategy (IWS). He has over 25 years of experience with all phases of the design, development, and evaluation of innovative state-of-the-art systems. 

**Jeffrey R. Cooper** is a Senior Researcher at Science Applications International Corporation, where he focuses on the strategic, policy, and operational aspects of the Revolution in Military Affairs and Information Warfare. He is a frequent lecturer at the National Defense University on a variety of defense-related topics. 

**Dr. Michael G. Sovereign** has been teaching Command-and-Control at the Naval Postgraduate School since 1970 and he currently chairs its institute of Joint Warfare. He is the co-author of Quantitative Models for Production Management and a 1982 recipient of the Secretary of Defense's Meritorious Civilian Service Medal. 

**James Hazlett**, a retired naval officer, is a Senior Analyst at SAIC Inc. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and has published in the *Naval Institute Proceedings* and in the *Joint Force Quarterly*. 

----

| DBK Index |

| Return to CCRP Home Page |
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Marking 29 Years Since the Panchen Lama’s Disappearance

# 											Marking 29 Years Since the Panchen Lama’s Disappearance									

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

May 17, 2024

Today marks 29 years since the People’s Republic of China (PRC) abducted the 11th Panchen Lama, one of the most important figures in Tibetan Buddhism, as a six-year-old child.  Gedhun Choekyi Nyima remains missing and has not appeared in public since that day.  The PRC government is denying members of the Tibetan community access to this important religious figure and instead continues to promote a state-selected proxy. 

The United States supports Tibetans’ human rights and their exercise of those rights in connection with their distinct religious, cultural, and linguistic identity. Tibetans, like members of all religious communities, should have the ability to select, educate, and venerate their own leaders, like the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, according to their own beliefs and without government interference. 

We urge PRC authorities to immediately account for Gedhun Choekyi Nyima’s whereabouts and well-being and to allow him to fully exercise his human rights in line with the PRC’s international commitments.  

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborChinaHuman RightsOffice of International Religious FreedomOffice of the SpokespersonReligious FreedomTibet

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-29-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             885
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,472
<INVENTORY>                                     60,392
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               211,931
<PP&E>                                         712,071
<DEPRECIATION>                                 352,511
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 715,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          125,128
<BONDS>                                        287,910
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           689
<OTHER-SE>                                     228,549
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   715,964
<SALES>                                        244,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               245,663
<CGS>                                          203,802
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  244,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,684
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,399
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,332
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,067
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,067
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51


</TABLE>
10th Amendement to 2002 Amended Servicing Agreement



 Exhibit 10.36 
 TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE 2002 AMENDED SERVICING AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) is made this 22nd day of
December, 2008 to that certain 2002 Amended Servicing Agreement (“Agreement”) by and between BOSTON SERVICE COMPANY, INC. (“BSC”) and AUTO LENDERS LIQUIDATION CENTER, INC. (“Auto Lenders”). 
 BACKGROUND 
 BSC and Auto Lenders wish to amend
the Amended Servicing Agreement by changing language in the Second Amendment to the 2002 Servicing Agreement and inserting additional language to Paragraph 4 – Delivery & Reconditioning of Vehicles and by inserting the agreed upon
Servicing Fee for calendar years 2009-2011 within Paragraph 9. In determining the servicing fee for the calendar year 2011, the company opted to revise the agreed upon amounts for the calendar years 2009 and 2010. By agreeing to the revised amount
for the next 36 months, the company took benefit of a present value discount of $540,000. All other terms and conditions remain in full force and effect. 
 Change to Fourth Amendment to the Amended Servicing Agreement 
 Amendment to Paragraph 4 – Delivery and Reconditioning of
Vehicles 
 The paragraph will limit the amount of reimbursed expense by BSC to Auto Lenders covering the period of 01/01/09 through
12/31/09 to $550,000 per month. 
 Amendment to Paragraph 9 – Consideration 
 This Paragraph shall be amended as it pertains to the Guarantee Fees found under Paragraph B (iv) in which the agreed upon Guarantee Fee for the
calendar years 2009-2011 will appear as follows: 
 The Guarantee Fee will be $385,000 per month for the period 01/01/09 through 12/31/11.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, BSC and Auto Lenders have caused this Ninth Amendment to the 2002 Amended Servicing Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
corporate officers and their corporate seals to be affixed hereto the day and year written beneath their signatures below; each intending this Amendment shall become effective on the date first written above. 
  

									
		 		 	AUTO LENDERS LIQUIDATION CENTER, INC.
					
	Attest:	 	/s/ Beverly Shoemaker	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Michael Wimmer
	[Assistant] Secretary	 		 	Title:	 	President/CEO
				
	(Corp. Seal)	 		 	Dated:	 	1/7/09

  

									
		 		 	BOSTON SERVICE COMPANY, INC. t/a
		 		 	HANN FINANCIAL SERVICE CORP.
					
	Attest:	 	/s/ Andrea Szagala	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Charles R. Dovico
	[Assistant] Secretary	 		 	Title:	 	President and CEO
				
	(Corp. Seal)	 		 	Dated:	 	1/7/09
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6024

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. STEPHEN ARTHUR ROBINETTE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00400

- WO

- 1 ; 1:17

- cv 01132 )

Submitted : March 13, 2018 Decided: March 16, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Stephen Arthur Robinette , Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro , North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opin ions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stephen Arthur Robinette seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation recommending that his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion be dismissed without prejudice . This court may ex ercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Robinette s eeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See In re Bryson , 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir. 2005); Haney v. Addison , 175 F.3d 1217, 1219 (10th Cir. 1999); Aluminum Co. of Am. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency , 663 F.2d 499, 501

- 02 (4th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
DISMISSED
**
Exhibit 34.2 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (Ernst & Young LLP) 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

U.S. Bank National Association 

We have examined management’s****assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment ofCompliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S.Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar and paying agent services, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2022, except forservicing criteria Items 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(v), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(v)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to theservicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance withthe servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the AmericanInstitute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of lessthan all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to ourtests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient andappropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance withthe servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and forthe year ended March 31, 2022, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

 
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota 

May 26, 2022 

 
20 

**
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 180 (Friday, September 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22529]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-8597-5]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental 
Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and 
Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. 
Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of 
Federal Activities at 202-564-7146. An explanation of the ratings 
assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published 
in the Federal Register dated July 17, 2009 (74 FR 34754).

Draft EISs

EIS No. 20090229, ERP No. D-NPS-E65084-FL, Big Cypress National 
Preserve Addition, General Management Plan/Wilderness Study/Off-Road 
Vehicle Management Plan, Implementation, Collier County, FL.

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about surface water 
and wetland impacts, and recommended that the final EIS include a 
cumulative impact analysis for the entire Big Cypress National 
Preserve. Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20090246, ERP No. D-AFS-K65376-CA, Eddy Gulch Late-Successional 
Reserve Fuels/Habitat Protection Project, To Protect Late-Successional 
Habitat used by the Northern Spotted Owl and Other Late-Successional-
Dependent Species, Salmon River and Scott River Ranger District, 
Klamath National Forest, Siskiyou County, CA.

    Summary: EPA requested additional information regarding a smoke 
management plan, worker exposure to naturally occurring asbestos, the 
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and noxious weeds. Rating EC2.

Final EISs

EIS No. 20090284, ERP No. F-ARD-L65578-WA, Adoption--White Pass 
Expansion Master Development Plan, Implementation, Naches Ranger 
District, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests and Cowlitz Valley Ranger 
District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Yakima and Lewis Counties, 
WA.

    Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

    Dated: September 15, 2009.

Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E9-22529 Filed 9-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,778
<SECURITIES>                                     1,063
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,319
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (410)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,483
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,675
<PP&E>                                           8,837
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,847)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,598
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        99,392
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,644
<SALES>                                            185
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   278
<CGS>                                              407
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,618
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,720)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,720)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32
 COMM BANCORP, INC.
 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350
  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 at the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.
 Date: August 12, 2009
    /s/ William F. Farber, Sr.William F. Farber, Sr.President and Chief Executive Officer   61




---



##### 



COMM BANCORP, INC.
 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350
  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 at the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.
 Date: August 12, 2009
    /s/ Scott A. SeasockScott A. SeasockExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer   62
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41780

Summary Calendar

ISMAEL RODRIGUEZ, also known as Officer Smiley

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CV-5

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ismael Rodriguez, Texas prisoner # 1187177, is serving a 70-year prison

sentence for murder. He appeals the district court’s denial of relief under 28

U.S.C. § 2254. This court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) after

Rodriguez raised issues as to the retroactivity of Crawford v. Washington, 541

U.S. 36 (2004), and whether his Crawford claim is procedurally barred. The

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 16, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-41780

2

State has since conceded that Crawford’s retroactivity is not at issue because

Rodriguez’s conviction was not final when Crawford was decided. 

Rodriguez contends that the admission of his accomplices’ guilty plea

documents violated his Confrontation Clause rights as recognized by Crawford

because those pleas were admissions not only against the accomplices’ penal

interest but against his own. This Crawford claim was rejected by the state

appellate court as procedurally barred because Rodriguez did not make a

Confrontation Clause or hearsay objection at trial. Our review of this claim is

therefore barred by an independent and adequate state rule of procedural

default. See Parr v. Quarterman, 472 F.3d 245, 253 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied,

127 S. Ct. 2974 (2007). 

Rodriguez’s argument that, prior to Crawford, he could not have raised a

non-futile objection to his accomplices’ evidence is meritless. Such objections

were recognized long before Crawford. See Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 134

(1999); Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 599 (1994); Lee v. Illinois, 476

U.S. 530, 541, 543 (1986); see also Bunton v. State, 136 S.W.3d 355, 369 (Tex. Ct.

App. 2004); Cofield v. State, 891 S.W.2d 952, 955 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).

Rodriguez also contends that the State’s closing rebuttal argument

improperly linked the accomplices’ pleas to Rodriguez’s guilt. Rodriguez did not

raise the issue of an improper closing argument in his COA application or

anywhere else prior to the instant appeal. Because our review is limited to

claims on which a COA was granted, we do not consider this claim. See Larry

v. Dretke, 361 F.3d 890, 896 (5th Cir. 2004). 

Rodriguez has shown no basis for relief under § 2254. The judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 32(ii)

                               COMM BANCORP, INC.

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Scott A. Seasock, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Comm Bancorp, Inc., (the "Company"), hereby certifies that to the best of his
knowledge:

1.    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, of
      the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company
      at the dates and for the periods indicated.

The foregoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.

Date: May 12, 2004                     /s/ Scott A. Seasock
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Scott A. Seasock
                                       Executive Vice President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer

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

                                       50