alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57102-57103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23285]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7112]


Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice; FACA Committee meeting announcement.

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

Summary: As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 
92-463, the Department of State gives notice of a meeting of the 
Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services. This 
Committee has been formed in fulfillment of the provisions of the 2006 
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 109-435) and in 
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Date: October 19, 2010 from 2 p.m. to about 5 p.m. (open to the 
public).
    Location: The American Institute of Architects (Boardroom), 1735 
New York Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20006.
    Meeting agenda: The agenda of the meeting will include a review of 
the results of the April 2010 UPU Postal Operations Council, the major 
issues to arise at the November 2010 UPU Council of Administration and 
other subjects related to international postal and delivery services of 
interest to Advisory Committee members and the public.
    Public input: Any member of the public interested in providing 
public input to the meeting should contact Ms.

[[Page 57103]]

Yvette White, whose contact information is listed below. Each 
individual providing oral input is requested to limit his or her 
comments to five minutes. Requests to be added to the speaker list must 
be received in writing (letter, e-mail or fax) prior to the close of 
business on October 12, 2010; written comments from members of the 
public for distribution at this meeting must reach Ms. White by letter, 
e-mail or fax by this same date. A member of the public requesting 
reasonable accommodation should make the request to Ms. White by that 
same date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvette White Office of Global Systems 
(IO/GS), Bureau of International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department 
of State, at (202) 647-1044, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98eff0f1ecfde1f5d8ebecf9ecfdb6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b0c13120f1e02163b080f1a0f1e551c140d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 3, 2010.
Dennis M. Delehanty,
Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on International Postal 
and Delivery Services.
    Dated: September 3, 2010.
Dennis M. Delehanty,
Foreign Affairs Officer Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-23285 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRANDYN WILLIAM GAYLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-15706 

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00769-APGCWH 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2019**

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Brandyn William Gayler appeals pro se from the district court’s summary 

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that officials at High Desert State 

Prison (“HDSP”) violated his equal protection rights by not providing him with the 

same educational, vocational, and employment opportunities as similarly situated 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-15706 

prisoners at other Nevada state prisons. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo questions of mootness. Di Giorgio v. Lee (In re Di 

Giorgio), 134 F.3d 971, 974 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gayler’s official 

capacity claims for injunctive and declaratory relief because these claims were 

rendered moot when Gayler was transferred to another prison. See Nelson v. 

Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that “when a prisoner is 

moved from a prison, his action will usually become moot as to conditions at that 

particular facility”). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gayler’s 

individual capacity claims because Gayler failed to raise a genuine dispute of 

material fact as to whether any of the defendants personally participated in the 

alleged deprivations. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(elements for supervisory liability under § 1983).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
News United States Air Force
 AF Week in PhotosPublished Aug. 3, 2018
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                This week's photos feature Airmen from around the globe involved in activities supporting expeditionary operations and defending America. This weekly feature showcases the men and women of the Air Force.air 



force 



Week 



In 



Photos 



imagery 



Best 



photo 



Airmen 



Aircraft 



Inventory 



F-35 



f-16 



F-15 



SFS 



B-52 



dignified 



transfer 



OIR
EX-33.7
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Document Custody
1015 10th Avenue Southeast
Minneapolis, MN 55414


ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA

The Document Custody Section of the Corporate Trust Services division of Wells
Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Company") is responsible for assessing
compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company has
determined that the servicing criteria are applicable in regards to the
servicing platform as of and for the period as follows:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed
securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities issued on or after January
1, 2006 for which the Company provides document custody services, excluding any
such securities issued by any agency or instrumentality of the U.S. government
(other than the Federal Deposit Insurance Company) or any government sponsored
entity (the "Platform").

Applicable Servicing Criteria: The servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii), in regard to the activities
performed by the Company with respect to the Platform (the "Applicable
Servicing Criteria"). Management of the Company has determined that all other
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the
Platform.

Period: As of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2011 (the "Period").

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following
assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

1. The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

2. The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
In performing this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the
Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation
AB.

3. Based on such assessment for the Period, the Company has complied, in all
material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an
attestation report with respect to the Company's assessment of compliance for
the Period.


WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

By: /s/ Shari Gillund
    Shari Gillund

Its: Senior Vice President

Dated: February 23, 2012
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 436 

Expressing support for designation of October as ‘‘National Protect Your 

Hearing Month’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 

Mr. ROSS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of October as ‘‘National 

Protect Your Hearing Month’’. 

Whereas the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) estimates that approximately 17 percent (36,000,000) of adults in the United 

States report some degree of hearing loss; 

Whereas the NIDCD estimates that approximately 15 percent (26,000,000) of people in the United States between 

the ages of 20 and 69 have high frequency hearing loss 

due to exposure to loud sounds or noise at work or in leisure activities; 

Whereas young people and their families take part in activities every day that can contribute to increased exposure 

to harmful noise levels; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 436 IH 

Whereas potential sources include personal stereo systems 

and portable movie and game systems, sports recreation 

activities, such as hunting and snowmobiling, athletic 

events, concerts, yard work, such as mowing the lawn, 

and hobbies, such as woodworking; 

Whereas over time, continued exposure to harmful noise levels can lead to permanent noise-induced hearing loss 

(NIHL); 

Whereas noise-induced hearing loss can be prevented through 

simple measures to reduce exposure to loud sounds including turning down the volume, limiting the amount of 

time spent engaged in a loud activity, moving away from 

the source of sound, or wearing hearing protection when 

involved in a loud activity; 

Whereas Congress is an institution that can help raise awareness in the general public about the importance of protecting one’s hearing; and 

Whereas the month of October would be an appropriate 

month to designate as ‘‘National Protect Your Hearing 

Month’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘National Pro4 tect Your Hearing Month’’; and 

5 (2) recognizes that all people in the United 

6 States should become more aware of the potential 

7 for noise-induced hearing loss in their daily activities 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•HCON 436 IH 

1 and of the measures they can take to protect their 

2 hearing for a lifetime. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-31177 Summary Calendar

LEE BARTHELEMY; AARON LILLER; CLAUDE CALLAGAN; DARLENE WILLIAMSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; RESOURCE INDEPENDENT LIVING Plaintiffs - Appellees v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS; FREDERICK P CERISE, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals Defendants - Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 2:00-CV-1083
Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Thisappeal isfrom an award ofattorneys’ feesafter theStateofLouisiana entered into a settlement agreement with class counsel for the Plaintiffs. Louisiana did not oppose class counsel’s motion for fees. After the district court ordered Louisiana to pay the requested fees, Louisiana requested that the United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September 24, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-31177

2 district court reconsider the award offees, arguing that the Attorney General’s office was the proper entity to litigate the matter and was never served the motion for fees. Thedistrict court denied the motion for reconsideration, finding that class counsel had served notice on Louisiana’s attorney of record and, two days after filing the motion for fees, also inquired whether the Attorney General’s office needed to be served. There is evidence that Louisiana’s counsel of record informed class counsel that an attorney f or the Attorney General had already been assigned to respond to the motion and that the Attorney General’s office
was already in possession of the relevant documentation. The district court found that the initial motion for fees was unopposed and also had merit. Other than being unintentional, the district court concluded that Louisiana failed to provide any reason for its failure to respond to the motion. The attorneys’ fees awarded here were requested pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 12205; both sections provide the district court with discretion to award attorneys’ fees. The district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and denial of Louisiana’s motion for reconsideration are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. D P Solutions, Inc. v. Rollins, Inc., 353 F.3d 421, 433 (5th Cir. 2003) (attorneys’ fees); Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. De La Luz Garcia, 501 F.3d 436, 442 (5th Cir. 2007) (reconsideration). Class counsel’s motion for fees included documentation such as detailed time and expense sheets, a survey offee rates for Louisiana, a memorandum of law, and declarations of counsel in support of the requested fees. The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the requested fees nor in denying the motion for reconsideration. The judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SALVATORE “SAM” BADELAMENTI.

Dec. 20, 1979.

Cross-Petition for certification denied.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6264

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JAMES KANE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Bryson City

. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 2:08

- cr
- 00024

- MR

- DLH

- 1; 1:16

- cv
- 00146

- MR )

Submitted : December 14, 2017 Decided: December 19, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Joshua B. Carpenter , FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC. , Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anthony Joseph Enright, Assistant U nited States Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Charlotte, N orth Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant U nited States Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James Kane appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion , filed pursuant to authorization from this court . We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. According ly, we affirm the district court’s order and deny Kane’s motion to accelerate the processing of the appeal . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument wou ld not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3008 

To extend temporarily the extended period of protection for members of 

uniformed services relating to mortgages, mortgage foreclosure, and eviction, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 11, 2014 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE introduced the following bill; which was read twice, 

considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the extended period of protection for 

members of uniformed services relating to mortgages, 

mortgage foreclosure, and eviction, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Foreclosure Relief and 

5 Extension for Servicemembers Act of 2014’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3008 CPS

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF EXTENDED PERIOD OF 

2 PROTECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF UNI3 FORMED SERVICES RELATING TO MORT4 GAGES, MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, AND 

5 EVICTION. 

6 Section 710(d) of the Honoring America’s Veterans 

7 and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Pub8 lic Law 112–154; 126 Stat. 1208) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘December 

10 31, 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2015’’; and 

11 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘January 1, 

12 2015’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2016’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# Andersen AFB's 36th Wing named Air Force outstanding unit

              - Published  May 26, 2020
              -                             By Master Sgt. Richard P. Ebensberger                                                    

**ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam  --  **
The **36th Wing** has been awarded the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award for exceptionally meritorious service from Oct. 1, 2017 to Sept. 30, 2019.The award was created by the Department of the Air Force Jan. 6, 1954. It is awarded by the **secretary of the Air Force** to numbered units that display decidedly superior performance; distinguishing themselves among and above similar units.The wing garnered recognition as a result of the mission accomplishments providing deterrence, assurance to allies and strength for regional security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region.The Airmen at **Andersen Air Force Base** generated more than 1,400 Pacific power projection missions in support of multiple **Indo-Pacific Command** objectives for deterrence and regional security. The wing led 146 presidential support sorties, moving 3 million pounds of cargo over eight geographically separated locations supporting the president of the United States’ engagements throughout the region.Furthermore, the wing prevailed over the effects of eight major weather events including six typhoons and two super typhoons while never losing its combat capability despite the requirements to disperse aircraft and ride out the base. Two of the worst storms coincided with joint and multinational exercises **COPE North** and Valiant Shield. The Airmen of the 36th Wing recovered the base and were back up to full-scale exercise operations in minimum time in each instance. This ensured the success of these large training venues benefiting all joint services, 11 partner nations and more than 7,000 Airmen.Additionally, Andersen AFB quickly responded to significant humanitarian crises after two typhoons devastated the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and an earthquake-rocked Indonesia. The 36th Wing provided emergency airlift and support equipment for 180 missions for non-governmental organization relief efforts resulting in the movement of 5 million pounds of aid for 200,000 affected personnel across the region.“I’m extremely proud of the team’s accomplishments and perseverance throughout many challenges — typhoons, the current pandemic and their demonstrated commitment to operational readiness and mission accomplishment,” said **Brig. Gen. Gentry W. Boswell**, 36th Wing commander. “The best part is that we accomplished all of these things together — as a team! The 36th Wing is truly an outstanding organization made up of the best Airmen; Airmen that know how to take care of the mission and take care of each other. I couldn’t be more proud.”

USAFAFAir ForcePacific Air ForcesPACAFAndersen AFBAir Force Outstanding Unit Awarddeterrenceregional securityexercisesCope NorthValiant Shield36th WingAFWN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1999, AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                            584,657
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                     2,914,147
<ALLOWANCES>                      0
<INVENTORY>                       1,750,750
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  5,649,514
<PP&E>                            22,046,022
<DEPRECIATION>                    13,728,816
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    14,973,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             16,936,171
<BONDS>                           0
<COMMON>                          9,723
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       437
<OTHER-SE>                        (2,573,236)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      14,973,653
<SALES>                           20,300,107
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  20,312,926
<CGS>                             14,558,368
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     20,459,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  57,277
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                2,173,238
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (2,442,535)
<INCOME-TAX>                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (2,442,535)
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                      (2,442,535)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (0.25)


</TABLE>
[No. 23924-8-II.

Division Two.

April 7, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Gerald Robert Godsey, Jr., *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 98-1-00666-5, Stephen M. Warning, J., entered October 26, 1998. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J, concurred in by Armstrong, C.J., and Hunt, J.