alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
While holding the rank of Lieutenant General, 

Seignious became the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Military Assistance 

and Sales and was concurrently assigned to 

be DSAA’s first director. 

LTG George Marion Seignious 

was the first Director of the 

Defense Security Assistance 

Agency (DSAA), later 

recommissioned as the 

Defense Security Cooperation 

Agency (DSCA) in 1998.

LTG GEORGE M. SEIGNIOUS

DSAA DIRECTOR (1971-1972)

BIOGRAPHY

Then-Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird created DSAA 

to serve as the Department of Defense (DoD)’s focal 

point and clearinghouse for tracking arms transfers, 

budgetary, legislative, and other security assistance 

matters through analysis, coordination, decision, and 

implementation. Laird also envisioned that the agency 

would serve the purpose of keeping all concerned 

elements of DoD informed about the status of ongoing 

security assistance actions by raising issues through 

the appropriate channels when decisions of higher 

authority were required.

September 1st, 2021 marks 50 years since the 

establishment of DSCA. 

In celebration of this milestone, DSCA is highlighting 

notable “Security Cooperators” who have served the 

Security Cooperation community over the past 50 years. 

These individuals, uniformed and civilian, all exemplify 

professionalism and public service, and embody DSCA’s 

ethos of “security through global partnerships.” 

“Faces of Security Cooperation” aims to provide a quick 

glance at the lives and legacies of those who have made 

impactful change in the history of Security Cooperation. 

From our past into our future, we honor those whose 

contributions have shaped DSCA into the agency we 

know today.

George Marion Seignious was born in Orangeburg, 

S.C. on June 21, 1921.

Seignious graduated from The Citadel in 1942, after 

which he had a storied military career, serving in 

numerous leadership and advisory positions. Prior to 

joining DSAA, he served as the U.S. Commander in 

Berlin and advised U.S. Ambassador to West Germany, 

Kenneth Rush, on the Four Power Agreement on Berlin.

In 1972, Seignious left DSAA when he was selected to 

be the first Director of the Joint Staff for the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff. Afterwards, he served as the president 

of his alma mater, The Citadel; the Director of the U.S. 

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; the U.S. 

Delegate-at-Large for Arms Control Negotiations;

and the President of the Atlantic Council.

Seignious died in Charleston, S.C. on July 3, 2005.

THE NEW AGENCY ABOUT “FACES OF SECURITY

COOPERATION”

Faces of Security Cooperation
Exhibit 31

Certifications

I, Paul
Vanderslice, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and
all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC27 (the
Exchange Act periodic reports);

2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this annual report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation
AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related
attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in
such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above,
I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; Deutsche Bank
Trust Company Americas; CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.; National Tax Search, LLC; Northmarq Capital, LLC; and Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC.

Date: March 30, 2018

|                                                                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                       
|/s/ Paul Vanderslice                                                                                                                   
|Paul Vanderslice President, Citigroup
Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc. (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

CGCMT 2015-GC27 Sarbanes-Oxley Certification (2017)
No. 11-9862.

#### Rivera *v.*Horne, Attorney General of Arizona, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Appellant's motion was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of

good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id.

Appellant did not attempt to demonstrate cause for the delay. To the extent that appellant argued that the procedural bars did not apply because he was challenging the constitutionality of the laws and the jurisdiction of the courts, appellant's argument was without merit. Appellant's claims challenge the validity of the judgment of conviction, and thus, the procedural bars do apply in this case. 3 See NRS 34.720(1); NRS 34.724(1). Because appellant did not demonstrate good cause, the motion was procedurally barred. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.



## IPTCU ITAA.. 

## IL Pickering

a rr a atritre.

Saitta J.

3 Appellant's claims did not implicate the jurisdiction of the courts. Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; NRS 171.010. We note that the Statutes of Nevada contain the laws with the enacting clauses required by the constitution. The Nevada Revised Statutes simply reproduce those laws as classified, codified, and annotated by the Legislative Counsel. NRS 220.120.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A

### cc: Hon. Nancy L. Porter, District Judge Michael Woomer Attorney General/Carson City Elko County District Attorney Elko County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

### 3
(0) 1947A
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6794

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TROY LAMONT MURPHY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (5:04-cr-00241-FL-2; 5:07-cv-00035-FL)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Lamont Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Troy Lamont Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Murphy has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 4, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 10 02 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 66 1- CV-CG-M SUZANNE L EFRERE, Pers on al Rep res en ta ti ve of the Est at e o f Ro ss Pau l Yat es , dec eas ed , ELAINE GA RNER, Pers on al Rep res en ta ti ve of the Est at e o f Ro ss Pau l Yat es , dec eas ed , Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , ve rs us JOR GE QUEZ ADA, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t, Bal dwi n C ou nt y

Co m m is si on , Ja m es B. Jo hn so n, St ev e Art hu r, Defen da nt s.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m be r 4, 2 00 9) Befo re CARNES a ndPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andDOWD, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e: W e rec en tl y

is su edanop in io n c ert ifyin g t o t he Alab am a Supr em e Co urt t hi s qu es ti on of s ta te law: “ Are jail ers , li ke sh eri ffs an d t he ir d ep ut ie s, ab so lu te ly imm un e fro m st at e cl ai m s fo r m on ey

da m ag es ba se d o n a ct io ns tak en withi n t he
sc op e o f th ei r em

pl oym en t? ” LeFrer e v . Quez ad a, 58 2 F .3d12 60 , 12 69 (11 th Cir
. 20 09 ). W e d idso be cau se we ne ed edto kn ow wh et he r th e Erie -g ue ss we m ad e twel ve y ears ag o i n Lan cas te r v. M on ro e Co un ty, 11 6 F .3d14 19 , 14 31 (11 th Cir
. 19 97 ), th atjail ers were en ti tl edto th atimm un it y was a n a ccu rat e st at em en t o f Alab am a la w. LeFrer e, 58 2 F .3dat 1 26 8. On ly sev en da y s af te r we is su edou r op in io n c ert ifyin g t ha t que st io n, t he an swe r cam e fro m th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt i n a no th er ca se . See Ex p art e Sh el le y , — So . 3d—, Nos . 10 80 58 8, 10 80 86 3, 2 00 9 WL 29 97 49 8 (Al a. Sep t. 1 8, 2 00 9)
.

Honora ble David D. D owd, J r., United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Ohio, sitti ngby

desig nation. 2Becaus e o f th e Sh el le y de ci si on , we no w kn ow t ha t o urLanc as te r de ci si on is no t an accu rat e st at em en t o f Alaba m a la w. W e n ow kno w th atjail ers are n ot
en ti tl edto ab so lu te st at e imm un it y un de r Art. I, § 14 of t he Alab am a Co ns ti tu ti on . Bec au se th atis all we ne edto kn ow t o d eci de th is ap pe al , th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt qui te un de rs ta nd ab ly andpo li te ly decl in edto an swe r ou r certi fie d q ue st io n in li gh t o f it s Sh el ly deci si on . Queza dav. LeFr ere, No . 10 81 74 1 (Al a. Dec. 1 , 20 09 ). The Sh el ly deci si on is th e an swe r to ou r qu es ti on . Bec au se th e Sh el le y

de ci si on effec ti ve ly ove rru le s o urLanc as te r de ci si on
on th e is su e o f ab so lu te imm un it y forAlab am a jail ers faci ng st at e la w cla im s, Offi cer Qu ezad a’s m ot io n t o d is m is s o n t ha t g ro un d was pro pe rly den ie d. AFFIRMED.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,089
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,325
<ALLOWANCES>                                       320
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,318
<PP&E>                                          12,353
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,873)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,549
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,979
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           75,818<F1>
<PREFERRED>                                        478
<COMMON>                                           290
<OTHER-SE>                                    (67,016)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,549
<SALES>                                          3,473
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,963
<CGS>                                            1,567
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,567
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,529
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  78
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,789
<INCOME-TAX>                                       164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,625
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,651)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43) 
<FN>
<F1>Represents Series A Redeemable Senior Preferred Stock that has a $10
liquidation preference and entitles holder to a 10% annual compounded dividend.
No dividends paid to date.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

================================================================================


                                 UNITED STATES

                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549


                                   FORM 8-K


                                CURRENT REPORT


     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

DATE OF REPORT (Date of earliest event reported):         May 8, 2002

                             DYNEGY HOLDINGS INC.
            (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


          DELAWARE                  0-29311                 94-3248415
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(State or other jurisdiction      (Commission            (I.R.S. Employer
     of incorporation)            File Number)          Identification No.)


               1000 LOUISIANA, SUITE 5800, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
               ------------------------------------------------
         (Address of Principal Executive Offices, including Zip Code)

       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (713) 507-6400

================================================================================

<PAGE>

ITEM 5.  OTHER EVENTS.

     On May 8, 2002, Dynegy Inc., the registrant's parent company, issued a
press release announcing the Securities and Exchange Commission's intention to
request a formal order of investigation in connection with the natural gas
transaction referred to as "Project Alpha."

     A copy of Dynegy's May 8, 2002 press release relating to the investigation
is attached hereto as exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by this reference.


ITEM 7.   FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS

(a)  Financial Statements of Business Acquired - Not applicable.

(b)  Pro Forma Financial Information - Not applicable.

(c)  Exhibits:

     99.1  Press release of Dynegy Inc. dated May 8, 2002.

                                       2

<PAGE>

                                  SIGNATURES

          Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                          DYNEGY HOLDINGS INC.


                                           /s/  Keith R. Fullenweider
                                          __________________________________
                                          Keith R. Fullenweider
                                          Senior Vice President and
                                          Deputy General Counsel


Dated:   May 9, 2002

                                       3
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 82 

To repeal the Department of Agriculture bioenergy subsidy programs and 

other related subsidy programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Reform, and Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the Department of Agriculture bioenergy subsidy 

programs and other related subsidy programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Farewell to Unneces5 sary Energy Lifelines Reform Act of 2019’’ or the ‘‘FUEL 

6 Reform Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 82 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BIO2 ENERGY SUBSIDY PROGRAMS AND OTHER 

3 RELATED SUBSIDY PROGRAMS. 

4 Title IX of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 

5 Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8101 et seq.) is repealed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
### Energy Analysis Methodology

– Climate Zone Mapping between HUD and IECC

EISA provides that DOE’s energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing may “ be based on the climate zones established by [HUD] rather than the climate zones under the [IECC]” (Pub. L. 110

- 140).

Figure 1 provides estimated da ta for manufactured home sales in those portions of 2012 IECC Climate Z ones 1 to 4 that overlap with HUD Climate Zone 1. Based on homes sales, HUD C limate Z one 1 is almost equally split between 2012 IECC C limate Z ones 2 and 3, wi th small portions in 2012 IECC C limate Z ones 1 and 4.

Figure 1

. Estimated Shares of Manufactured Home Sales by 2012 IECC Climate Zones 1 to 4 Within HUD Climate Zone 1

Figure 2 provides estimated data for manufactured home sales in those portions of 2012 IECC Climate Zones 2 to 6 that overlap with HUD Climate Zone 2. A pproximately half of home sales in HUD C limate Z one 2 occur in 2012 IECC Climate Z one 3 while smaller portions of h ome sales occur in 2012 IECC C limate Z ones 2, 4, and 5 (note also that one county within 2012 IECC Climate Z one 6 occurs in HUD C limate Z one 2).

Figure 2

. Estimated Shares of Manufactured Home Sales by 2012 IECC Climate Zones 2 to 6 Within HUD Climate Zone 2Figure 3 provides estimated data for manufactured home sales in those portions of 2012 IECC Climate Zones 3 to 7 that overlap with HUD Climate Zone 3. A pproximately half of home sales in HUD C limate Z one 3 occur in 2012 IECC C limate Z one 5.

Figure 3

. Estimated Shares of Manufactured Home Sales by 2012 IECC Climate Zones 3 to 7 Within HUD Climate Zone 3
#### QIU RONG WANG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73316

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 9, 2018 * Pasadena, California

Filed February 15, 2018

Albert Chow, Attorney, Lin & Chow, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner

Jessica Dawgert, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,** District Judge.

*

The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Qiu Rong Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s (“U”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of re*437moval, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Petitioner did not testify credibly. See Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating standard). Petitioner’s testimony before the IJ was inconsistent and conflicted with her written declarations in several respects, including when she lived at her aunt’s home, when she had her first IUD removed, and the year of her second alleged forced abortion. In citing those discrepancies as the basis for the credibility determination, the IJ supplied “specific and cogent reasons” to find Petitioner’s testimony incredible, and the inconsistencies do not constitute “mere trivial error.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2009)).

2. The IJ did not err by failing to provide Petitioner with notice that her corroborative evidence was insufficient. Such notice, discussed in Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2011), is not required here because the IJ determined that Petitioner’s testimony was not credible. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1008-09 (9th Cir. 2017).

Petition DENIED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rando SAAVEDRA-RAMIREZ, also known as Diablo, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-20348 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rando Saavedra-Ramirez, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.'

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Rando Saavedra-Ramirez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Saavedra-Ra-mirez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’-s brief and the relevant parts of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the *480appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.