alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Department of the Air Force releases 21E9, 21S9, 22S8 promotion cycle statisticsPublished Dec. 10, 2021
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Kiana Pearson
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Air Force officials have selected 505 senior master sergeants for promotion to chief master sergeant, out of 2,775 eligible, for a selection rate of 18.19 percent in the 21E9 promotion cycle.
The average overall score for those selected was 400.48. Selectees’ average time in grade was 3.08 years and time in service was 20.82 years.
In addition, the Space Force also selected 10 senior master sergeants and 29 master sergeants for promotion in the 21S9 and 22S8 promotion cycles, respectively.
The statistics for each cycle are as follows:
-21S9: 45 Eligible, 22.22% selected. The average overall score for those selected was 395.50. Selectees’ average time in grade was 3.76 years and time in service was 21.50 years.
-22S8: 259 Eligible, 11.20% selected. The average overall score for those selected was 395.55. Selectees’ average time in grade was 3.34 years and time in service was 16.83 years.
The promotion lists are available on the **Enlisted Promotions** page of the Air Force’s Personnel Center website, the Air Force Portal and myPers. Airmen can access their score notices on the virtual Military Personnel Flight via the AFPC secure applications page. Guardians will receive their score notices via email.
For more information about Air Force personnel programs, visit the **AFPC public website**.AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



AFPC 



Air Force’s Personnel Center 



enlisted 



promotion 



senior master sergeant 



NCO 



noncommissioned officer 



statistics
[No. 44399-2-I.

Division One.

March 27, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Lawrence Eugene Shepherd, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 98-1-02065-7, David E Hulbert, J., entered March 29, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Agid, A.C.J., and Appelwick, J.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jason
Kulas, 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 Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2011-1 (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 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. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed
by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports,
the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement 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: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.



/s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

September 20, 2013
EXHIBIT 33.1





REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA


FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES





Entergy Louisiana, LLC (the “Servicer”), as a party participating in the servicing function under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, hereby reports on its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as follows:





(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the Senior Secured Storm Recovery Bonds: (1)(ii) (outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond), 2(iii) (advances or guarantees), (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), (4)(v) (records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(x) (funds held in trust for an obligor), (4)(xi) (payments on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements), and (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);





(2) The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;





(3) The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2018, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and





(4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Servicer's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.








Date:  March 28, 2019





Entergy Louisiana, LLC as servicer





By: /s/ Steven C. McNeal


Name:  Steven C. McNeal


Title:   Vice President and Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                  3,316
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             495
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        3,819
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          4,218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   2,145
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                              2,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            4,218
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          145
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (60)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (60)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              (60)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (2.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (2.06)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6079]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

  As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate 
a message from the President of the United States submitting a 
nomination which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  (The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate 
proceedings.)

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4678]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                             A HISTORIC DAY

  (Mr. BOEHNER asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, today truly is a historic day in America. 
For the first time in anybody's memory, this Congress today will 
present to the American people a plan to balance the budget over the 
next 7 years, a plan that will save Medicare, will improve Medicare for 
our senior citizens.
  It has taken a new Congress to have the guts to bring this issue to 
the floor of the House because the American people want it. Eighty 
percent of the American people are demanding that we deal with the 
fiscal and moral crisis that is occurring in this country and so we 
have a plan.
  I find it interesting that, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, the President of the United States has no plan. There is no plan 
from you. And so they are going to criticize. They are going to spread 
fear amongst the people about what our plan is. But I would urge the 
American people to ask the other side, the liberals, where is their 
plan to balance the budget? Where is their plan to save the future for 
our children and their children? Because the Republican plan to balance 
the budget is a contract with our children and theirs.

                          ____________________
```
#### EDWIN S. DARRELL AND JOHN SARAFIN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. GOVERNING BODY OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CLARK; EXXON CORPORATION; BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CLARK; JOSEPH SWEENEY, BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CLARK, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Argued March 3, 1980 —

Decided April 14, 1980.

*427*Paul R. Williams, Jr.,*argued the cause for appellants *(Williams & Flynn,*attorneys).

*Arnold M. Smith*argued the cause for respondent Exxon Corporation.

*John Pisansky*argued the cause for respondent Board of Adjustment of the Township of Clark *(Magner, Abraham, Orlando, Kahn & Pisansky,*attorneys).

*Joseph J. Triarsi*argued the cause for respondents Governing Body of the Township of Clark and Joseph Sweeney *(Pisano*and *Triarsi,*attorneys).

*428PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in its opinion reported at 169 *N.J.Super.*127 (1978). For the guidance of the bench and bar we add the following comments.

This matter, brought under the old Municipal Planning Act, *N.J.S.A.*40:55-1 *et seq.,*involved the grant of a variance from a special exception condition contained in a municipal zoning ordinance. The new Municipal Land Use Law (Law), *N.J.S.A.*40:55D-1 *et seq.,*now defines a special exception as a conditional use. *N.J.S.A.*40:55D-3. Under Article 8 of the Law, conditional uses are granted by a planning board rather than by a board of adjustment. *N.J.S.A.*40:55D-67. However, the Law vests a board of adjustment with the power to grant variances. *N.J.S.A.*40:55D-70. By L.1979, c. 216, subsection (d) of *N.J.S.A.*40:55D-70 was amended to provide for the grant of a variance “to allow departure from regulations pursuant to Article 8 of this act, including, but not limited to, allowing a structure or use in a district restricted against such structure or use.” The statement attached to the Bill enacted as L.1979, c. 216, sets forth that the amendment to subsection (d) was made to “require that any variance for a conditional use be processed as a ‘d’ (special reasons) variance.” It is clear, therefore, that under the Municipal Land Use Law a board of adjustment would have the power to grant a variance in the situation here presented.

*For affirmance*— Justices SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, SCHREIBER, HANDLER and POLLOCK — 5.

*For reversal*— None.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 175 (Friday, September 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 55382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22751]



[[Page 55382]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission (``SEC'') and the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission (``CFTC'') will hold public roundtable discussions on 
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at the CFTC's headquarters at Three 
Lafayette Centre, Lobby Level Hearing Room (Room 1000), 1155 21st 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581 and on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 
at the SEC's headquarters at 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 in 
the Auditorium, (Room L-002).
    The meeting on Tuesday will begin at 8:45 a.m. and the meeting on 
Wednesday will begin at 9 a.m., with both meetings being open to the 
public, with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Visitors will 
be subject to security checks.
    This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the 
Commission may attend the meetings.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, determined that no earlier 
notice thereof was possible.
    The agenda for the meeting on September 14, 2010 includes a panel 
discussion concerning data for swaps and security-based swaps, swap 
data repositories, security-based swap data repositories, and real-time 
public reporting in the context of certain authority that Sections 727, 
728, and 763 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act (``Act'') granted the Agencies respectively.
    The agenda for the meeting on September 15, 2010 includes a panel 
discussion concerning swap execution facilities and security-based swap 
execution facilities in the context of certain authority that Sections 
733 and 763 of Act granted the Agencies.
    For further information, please contact the CFTC's Office of Public 
Affairs at (202) 418-5080 or the SEC's office of Public Affairs at 
(202) 551-4120.

    Dated: September 8, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-22751 Filed 9-8-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2735 

To provide for an extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2014 

Mr. PRYOR (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide for an extension of the Internet Tax Freedom 

Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1101(a) of the Internet 

5 Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by 

6 striking ‘‘November 1, 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘December 

7 31, 2014’’. 

8 (b) GRANDFATHERING OF STATES THAT TAX INTER9 NET ACCESS.—Section 1104(a)(2)(A) of such Act is 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2735 IS

1 amended by striking ‘‘November 1, 2014’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘December 31, 2014’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2708 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2708

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide equal access to 
   declaratory judgments for organizations seeking tax-exempt status.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 2014

 Mr. Coats (for himself and Mr. Blunt) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide equal access to 
   declaratory judgments for organizations seeking tax-exempt status.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Access to Court Challenges for 
Exempt Status Seekers (ACCESS) Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. EQUAL ACCESS TO DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS FOR ORGANIZATIONS SEEKING 
              TAX-EXEMPT STATUS.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 7428(a)(1) is amended 
to read as follows:
                    ``(A) with respect to the initial qualification or 
                continuing qualification of an organization as an 
                organization described in section 501(c) or 501(d) 
                which is exempt from tax under section 501(a) or as an 
                organization described in section 170(c)(2),''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to pleadings filed after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30039 Conference Calendar

__________________ DANNY McCRAY MATHERLY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DONNIE R. SEAL AND ED C. DAY, Defendants, DONNIE SEAL, Defendant-Appellee.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

____________________ No. 95-30040 Conference Calendar

____________________ DANNY McCRAY MATHERLY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DONNIE R. SEAL AND ED C. DAY, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-1168 F

- - - - - - - - - - August 22, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *Nos. 95-30039 & 95-30040 -2-

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. Danny M. Matherly, a prisoner in the Washington Correctional Institute, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison guard Donnie R. Seal searched Matherly's foot locker and rifled his files. The dismissal of this suit is the subject of case number 95-30039. The parties agreed to proceed before a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The district court's findings of fact are reviewed for clear error; matters of law are reviewed de novo . SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 52; Valencia v. Wiggins , 981 F.2d 1440, 1449 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 113 S. Ct. 2998 (1993). The district court was correct in concluding that Matherly has no Fourth Amendment protection against an unreasonable search of his prison cell. Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984). Matherly did not specifically allege that anything had been removed from the files or that the inspection of the files had hampered his legal activities. As such, Matherly has failed to state "a cognizable constitutional claim either for a denial of access to the courts or for denial of [his] right to free speech by alleging that [his] . . . legal mail was opened and inspected for contraband outside [his] presence." Brewer v. Wilkinson , 3 F.3d 816, 825 (5th Cir. 1993) (case addressed incoming legal mail), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 1081 (1994). The district court's denial of his motion to proceed on IFP is the subject of Matherly's appeal in case number 95-30040. TheNos. 95-30039 & 95-30040 -3- district court was correct in denying IFP as moot because Matherly had already been granted IFP status. AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4679]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

        COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wicker) laid before the House the 
following communications from the Honorable Vic Fazio, chairman of the 
Democratic Caucus:

                                                Democratic Caucus,

                                U.S. House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to inform you that Representative 
     Nathan Deal is no longer a member of the Democratic Caucus.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Vic Fazio,
     Chairman.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit
32.2





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 Quarterly Report of Document Security Systems, inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Philip Jones,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectfully certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: May
17, 2010





/s/Philip JonesPhilip
      JonesChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Document Security Systems, Inc and will be retained by Document Security
Systems, Inc and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.