alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 AFGSC commander speaks on competitive edge, long-term strategic competitionPublished Sept. 17, 2019
                        
                        
                        Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs
                **NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. (AFNS) --**
                Gen. Timothy Ray, Air Force Global Strike Command commander, gave a keynote speech addressing global strike and the critical competitive edge it presents at the Air Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber Conference, Sept. 16 in National Harbor.
Starting with the shift in our nation’s defensive posture as a result of the 2018 National Defense Strategy, Ray highlighted the reemergence of long-term strategic competition and great power competition. Key to this discussion is the role the Air Force plays and the capabilities that tie into the competitive edge.
“It’s an incredibly different dynamic for us to have long-term strategic competition,” Ray said. “We have been in a competition in the Middle East, and we’ve done some great work, but ladies and gentlemen, that campaign was not an existential threat. Nothing there has ever created any doubts in our mind about our ability to deliver world peace.”
According to Ray, that ability to deliver world peace ties in to providing deterrence options to the nation’s leadership.
“I’m not in the deterrence business,” Ray added. “Deterrence belongs to the president of the United States, to the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, and it belongs to the chairman. I’m a war fighter.”
That same war-fighting mentality has been applied to the Airmen who maintain two-thirds of the nation’s nuclear triad.
“When I think of our triad, we have promised the extended deterrence of all of our allies in Europe and in the Pacific,” Ray said. “So whatever we do to our triad does not live in a vacuum.”
Ray stated the challenge presented to AFGSC is to maintain capability that no other nation can in the short term until new bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles arrive.
Click here for the full presentation.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Air Force Association 



air space and cyber conference 



National Harbor 



AFGSC 



Air Force Global Strike Command 



nuclear triad 



war fighter 



National Defense Strategy 



NDS 



deterrence 



competitive edge
#### Mary C. Hubbard v. Jas. C. Coker and J. W. Long.

(No. 56, Tex. L. J., vol. 1, p. 173.)

Appeal from Gonzales County.

January 16, 1878.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 657. *Vendor and vendee; right of latter to*recover. *back money paid on compromise of title.*A grantee holding under a general warranty deed, and who has been sued for the premises, by showing that the grantor’s deed to him conveyed no title; that he had been sued by a third party for land embraced in the deed, and that in order to get a good title to the land, he had compromised the suit, under proper allegations and proof, would be entitled to recover from the vendor the amount of money paid to the third party, not to exceed the purchase money and interest, without eviction. But before he would be entitled to recover, the grantee would be required to show that this third party had the title to tho land. The mere fact that the grantee had been so advised and believed, and that the compromise had been made to prevent litigation, would not warrant a recovery.

White, J., did not sit in this case.

Eeverscd and remanded.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0030 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CORENA MARIE MOUNTAIN CHIEF ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 25 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 16 2021

09/16/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0030
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4556-H4557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1430
  REPUBLICANS WILL SAVE, PROTECT, PRESERVE, AND IMPROVE THE MEDICARE 
                                 SYSTEM

  (Mr. TATE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
[[Page H4557]] minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, it is an exciting day in America, because the 
Republicans on the House side are making real change, just as we 
promised, with the Contract With America.
  Now we are going to take on the balancing of our national budget. Let 
me tell the Members, Mr. Speaker, a child born today, if we do nothing, 
will be saddled with $187,150 in their lifetime just in taxes, just to 
pay the service on our national debt. That is unacceptable. The 
Republicans are willing to take that on. We are also willing to save 
our Medicare system.
  If we do nothing, if we just sit back on our hands, like some are 
saying we should do, it is going to go bankrupt. Republicans are 
committed to save it, to protect it, to preserve it, to improve it. We 
are not going to bury our heads in the sand, Mr. Speaker. We are going 
to take on the issues that are important to working people, saving our 
future and saving our children's future.

                          ____________________
```
Filed 1/31/06 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2006 ND 8

Anthony James Moore, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20050263

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Steven E. McCullough, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Anthony James Moore, pro se, North Dakota State Penitentiary, P.O. Box 5521, Bismarck, N.D. 58506-5521; submitted on brief.

Birch P. Burdick, State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 2806, Fargo, N.D. 58108-2806, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.

Moore v. State

No. 20050263

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Anthony James Moore appeals from a judgment denying his application for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, and from the order quashing his subpoena of a KVLY-TV reporter.  

[¶2]Moore was convicted by a jury on November 28, 2001, of gross sexual imposition and sentenced to twenty years in prison.  Moore filed a direct appeal  of his conviction and counsel was appointed.  Moore later dropped the direct appeal, and  instead pursued a Rule 35, N.D.R.Crim.P., motion to reduce his sentence.  The trial court denied Moore's motion to reduce his sentence.   

[¶3]In his application for post-conviction relief, Moore argued his counsel during the Rule 35, N.D.R.Crim.P., proceedings was ineffective.  Moore also argued the trial court had falsified the transcript of his January 17, 2002, sentencing hearing.  To support his assertion that the trial court had falsified the sentencing hearing transcript, Moore sought to subpoena a KVLY-TV television reporter who had been present at the hearing.  

[¶4]The trial court concluded that both Moore's ineffective assistance of counsel claim and his claim the sentencing hearing transcript was altered or falsified were without merit.  The trial court quashed the subpoena of the KVLY-TV reporter, finding that the information sought was procured or obtained while the reporter was employed by and acting for an organization engaged in broadcasting news, and the failure to disclose such evidence will not cause a miscarriage of justice.  See N.D.C.C. § 31-01-06.2; Grand Forks Herald v. District Court, 322 N.W.2d 850 (N.D. 1982).  

[¶5]Moore's claims are frivolous and completely without merit.  The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in quashing the subpoena. We summarily affirm under  N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (2), and (4).

[¶6] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10 - 16 - 00164 - CR SEAN JEFFREY FOSTER , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015 - 102 - C2

ORDER In Trial Court Case No. 2015
- 102
- C2, appellant Sean Foster pled not guilty to one count of Burglary of a Habitation (Count I), three counts of Indecency with a Child by Contact (Counts II, III, and IV), and one count of Indecency with a Child by Exposure (Count V). A jury found Foster guilty of all counts and assessed Foster’s punishment at 30 years in prison in Count I, 15 years in prison in each of Counts II
- IV, and 10 years in prison in Count V. Five judgments were signed, one for each count.Foster v. State Page 2

Foster filed one notice of appeal, showing his desire to appeal from “the judgment of conviction and sentence” rendered against him in Trial Court Case No. 2015

- 102
- C2. The appeal therefore bears one case number, Court of Appeals No. 10
- 1 6
- 00 164
- CR. Foster’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief challenging only the judgments and sentences for Count s II through V. A brief bringing any alleged error or an Anders
type motion to withdraw and a supporting brief as to Count I must be filed in this proceeding within 30 days from the date of this order. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 13 96, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 (1967). If counsel files a motion to withdraw, counsel should also file a motion to sever as to that count. See Kirven v. State , No. 10
- 14
- 00122
- CR (Tex. App.

— Waco Oct. 22, 2015, order) (not designated for publication). See also Lore do v. State , No. 10
- 15
- 00322
- CR (Tex. App

— Waco Apr. 21, 2016, order) (not designated for publication); Keene v. State , No. 10
- 15
- 00389
- CR (Tex. App.

— Waco Feb. 15, 2017, order) (not designated for publication). PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Ju stice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Order issued and filed April 26 , 2017
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 60 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 60

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the United States has, in the course of its history, fought in many wars 
        and conflicts to defend freedom and protect the interests of the Nation;
Whereas millions of men and women have served the Nation in time of need as 
        members of the Armed Forces;
Whereas the service of veterans has been vital to the Nation, and the sacrifices 
        made by veterans and their families should not be forgotten with the 
        passage of time;
Whereas children throughout the Nation would benefit from programs that provide 
        education about veterans and that instill a patriotic appreciation of 
        the sacrifices made by veterans to defend freedom and to protect the 
        interests of the Nation;
Whereas efforts are being made throughout the Nation to devote November 10, or 
        another date as may be designated, to an event known as Veterans Educate 
        Today's Students Day; and
Whereas schools that participate in Veterans Educate Today's Students Day set 
        aside a portion of the school day for the study, recognition, and 
        appreciation of veterans: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) recognizes the importance of veterans to the United 
        States;
            (2) expresses support for the goals of Veterans Educate 
        Today's Students Day;
            (3) urges teachers, civic leaders, and veterans to carry 
        out programs that educate children about the service of 
        veterans and the sacrifices made by veterans and their 
        families; and
            (4) encourages the people of the United States to 
        participate in local and national activities recognizing 
        Veterans Educate Today's Students Day and other events that 
        foster education about the importance of veterans to the 
        Nation.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 5, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 60

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Expressing support for the goals of Veterans Educate Today's Students 
                  (VETS) Day, and for other purposes.
```
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 26, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1647

Lower Tribunal No. F12-7599

________________

Eric Spivey,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel Ruiz, Judge.

Eric Spivey, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Juan Flores v. J. S. Coy et al.

(No. 1233, Op. Book No. 2, p. 489.)

Error from Webb County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 804. *Judgment; on appeal from justice’s court; costs, how adjudged; jury cannot adjudge costs.*Elores sued Coy in justice’s court on a note for $195, and recovered judgment for the full amount of the note and for costs. Coy appealed to the county court, and in that court the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Elores for the amount of his note, but decided that he should pay Coy $10 dam- and all the costs of the suit. The court rendered *456judgment upon this verdict against Coy *alone*for tho-amount of the note, and against Flores for the $10 damages and all costs of suit in both the courts. Held, “ the successful party to a suit shall recover of his adversary all costs expended or incurred therein, except where it is or may be otherwise provided by law.” [R. S. 1424.] “In cases of appeal or *certiorari*taken by the party against whom the judgment was rendered in the court below, if the judgment of the court above be against him for a less amount, such party shall recover the costs of the court above, but shall be adjudged to pay the costs of the court below. If the judgment be against him for the same amount, or greater than in the court below, the adverse party shall recover the costs of both courts.” [R. S. 1432.] This is mandatory, and no jury has the right to say by their verdict that a party other than the one provided b3r law shall pay the costs or any part thereof. [Garrett v. McMahan, 34 Tex. 307.] “The court may, for good cause stated in the record, adjudge the costs otherwise than as provided ” in the articles cited, but in no case does the laN allow the *jury*to say who shall pay the costs; and when the costs are adjudged by the court otherwise than is provided by law-, the cause why this is done must appear of record. The verdict of the jury as to the costs was illegal and should have been set aside. The court erred also in not rendering judgment in favor of Flores against the sureties upon Coy’s appeal bond for the amount of his note, less the $10 damages found in favor of Coy.

January 28, 1882.

Reversed and rendered.
Exhibit 33.8

 

|  |
|--|

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND

EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

For the calendar year ending December 31, 2019, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for Wells Fargo Bank (the “Servicer”).

National Tax Search, LLC (“NTS”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2019 and for the period from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the “CFR”).  NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.  Only servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”) are applicable to the activities NTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report.  NTS has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report.  The transactions covered by this report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTS’s TaxQ system (the “Platform Transactions”).

NTS, as a vendor, has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that NTS has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2019 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2019 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

National Tax Search, LLC, as Vendor to Servicer

 

/s/ Lori D. Eshoo

Lori D. Eshoo

Executive,Operations

January 30, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED FOR THE THIRTY-NINE WEEKS ENDED JUNE 25, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-24-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-25-2000
<CASH>                                     107,312,000
<SECURITIES>                               116,499,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               56,990,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,733,000
<INVENTORY>                                 32,025,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           344,973,000
<PP&E>                                     620,864,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             336,335,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             672,254,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      122,881,000
<BONDS>                                    152,304,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       248,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 390,296,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               672,254,000
<SALES>                                    343,423,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           343,423,000
<CGS>                                      326,760,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              326,760,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,300,000<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             3,208,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,776,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (100,252,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (25,063,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (75,189,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (75,189,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.04)

<FN>
<F1>OTHER EXPENSES REFLECT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES.
</FN>

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6678]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          WAS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE? THE VOTERS HAVE SAID YES

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, more than 3 years ago I began making daily 
reports to the Senate making a matter of record the exact Federal debt 
as of close of business the previous day. In the instances of my Monday 
reports, the information related to the close of business the previous 
Friday.
  As of the close of business Friday, May 12, the exact Federal debt 
stood at $4,859,130,274.89, meaning that on a per capita basis, every 
man, woman, and child in America owes $18,445.34 as his or her share of 
the Federal debt.
  It is important to note, Mr. President, that the United States had an 
opportunity to begin controlling the Federal debt by implementing a 
balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, the 
Senate did not succeed in its first opportunity to control this debt--
but there will be another chance during the 104th Congress.

                          ____________________
```