alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 AF changes policy on limiting ADOS orders of pregnant reservistsPublished Feb. 1, 2017
                        
                        By Headquarters Individual Reservist Readiness and Integration Organization
                **BUCKLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. (AFNS)  --**
                The Air Force has changed its policy of automatically limiting or curtailing the orders of pregnant members of the Air Force Reserve serving on Active Duty for Operational Support (ADOS) orders at 34 weeks of pregnancy.
Airmen who are pregnant or give birth while serving a continuous period of at least 12 months are eligible for up to 12 weeks of non-chargeable maternity leave during that order. Orders may not be extended to cover maternity leave and an interruption of ADOS orders to accomplish AT/IDTs constitutes a break in orders.
Reservists not on 12-month continuous orders are permitted to continue serving on their current order as long as there is a valid requirement and the member’s AF468, Duty Limiting Condition Report, does not prohibit them from performing the duty required under the ADOS orders. Orders may not be extended solely for the purpose of pregnancy. However, the member may request to have ADOS tours extended beyond the 12-month pregnancy threshold if there is a valid requirement.
For the full policy -- including duty limitations, access to care, and medical continuity for Reserve component pregnant members -- review it in the memo section of the HQ RIO Resources webpage.
Questions or concerns should be directed to the member’s servicing HQ RIO Detachment. Contact information can be found online at arpc.afrc.af.mil, under HQ RIO Directory or detachments.reserves
**Exhibit 35.3**

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 

I, Karen Montbach, aManaging Director of Citibank, N.A. (the “Company”), hereby certify, with respect to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2011 between GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC (“LNR Partners”) as successor Special Servicer to Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor, Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator andDeutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee (the “Agreement”), the following: 

1.     A review of theCompany’s activities as Certificate Administrator during the reporting period beginning January 1, 2018 and ending December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and its performance under the Agreement has been made under mysupervision. 

2.    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligationsunder the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

This statement is given by the undersigned as an authorized officer of theCompany and not in the undersigned’s individual capacity. 

Date:    February 20, 2019
Acquisition chief to host AFVentures-focused 'Ask Me Anything' Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs / Published August 27, 2020  WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- **Dr. Will Roper** **AFVentures**   **AFWERX**     YouTube
 PHOTO DETAILS  DOWNLOAD HI-RES
 Dr. Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, is scheduled to host an “Ask Me Anything” event for AFVentures, Sept. 1, 2020. (U.S. Air Force courtesy graphic)
 
 TagFS TagUSAF TagAF TagAir Force TagSAF TagSecAF Tagacquisition Tagtechnology Taglogistics TagDr. Will Roper TagAFwerX TagAFVentures TagAMA TagAsk Me Anything Taglive Tagvirtual Tagevent
# News

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

# 330 Navy civilian employees transfer to the Air Force

              - Published  April 13, 2021
              -                             By Master Sgt. Richard P. Ebensberger, 36th Wing Public Affairs                                                    

**ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam (AFNS) --  **
Approximately 330 full-time civilian employees currently assigned to support Andersen Air Force Base will administratively transfer from the Navy to the Air Force April 11.On Nov. 9, 2020, former Air Force Vice Chief of Staff **Gen. Stephen W. Wilson**, Vice Chief of Naval Operations **Adm. William K. Lescher** and Assistant Commandant of the United States Marine Corps **Gen. Gary L. Thomas**, signed a new Joint Base Memorandum of Agreement to change the joint region construct returning selected 18 of 44 installation support functions to the Air Force at Andersen AFB.“This change will improve Andersen (AFB)’s ability to build multi-capable Airmen now and into the future as we work to further operationalize the base,” said **Brig. Gen. Jeremy T. Sloane**, 36th Wing commander. “The agreement also gives us improved fiscal control and operational flexibility so we can better support operations in the Indo-Pacific in line with the **National Defense Strategy**.”The agreement further allows the Navy to initiate a resource transfer of approximately $630 million to the Air Force. The primary functions realigned include; fire and emergency services, installation law enforcement and physical security, contracting, facility management, and logistics and transportation services.“This is a big win for us; not only are we getting 330 new Airmen, but this also opens the door to additional manning from the Air Force,” Sloane said. “Over the next five years, we’re expecting to receive approximately 380 additional personnel, which will allow us to operate more effectively and efficiently. I’d like to give a big thanks to the **Joint Region Marianas** staff for helping make this a reality.”To prepare for the transfer, Andersen AFB and JRM hosted a series of planning meetings and town-hall meetings to ensure a seamless transition. Employee payroll and human resources activities will change, however, there are no anticipated changes to employee’s position title, series, grade and general duties assigned. Full operational capability is expected no later than Oct. 1, 2021.

FSUSAFAFAir ForceAndersen AFBGuamNavycivilianemployeeadministrativetransferJoint Base Memorandum of AgreementJoint region MarianasJRMIndo-PacificNational Defense Strategy
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11.1


                                   REMEC, Inc.
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Three months ended               Six months ended
                                            --------------------------------   ---------------------------------
                                            August 1, 1997    August 4, 1996   August 1, 1997     August 4, 1996
                                            --------------    --------------   --------------     --------------
<S>                                          <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>        
Net income per common share:

    Net income                               $ 2,615,182       $ 1,408,563       $ 5,213,716       $ 2,462,777

Weighted average shares outstanding:

    Common Stock                              19,685,550        15,110,778        19,618,551        15,145,113

    Effect of common stock equivalents           757,456           287,916           645,614           251,893
                                             -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------
                                              20,443,006        15,398,694        20,264,165        15,397,006
                                             ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========
Net income per common share                  $      0.13       $      0.09       $      0.26       $      0.16
                                             ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========
</TABLE>
[No. 44384-4-I.

Division One.

May 1, 2000.]

#### Debra Wothers, *Appellant,*v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 98-1-01820-4, David J. Roberts, J. Pro Tern., entered September 21,1998. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion. Now published at 101 Wn. App. 75.
News United States Air Force
 Robotic process automation introduces digital workforcePublished March 8, 2020
                        
                        By Lauren Russell
                        
                        
                        66th Air Base Group Public Affairs
                **HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE, Mass. (AFNS) --**
                The Communications and Information Division (SC) at Hanscom Air Force Base is applying cutting-edge technology to tackle the mission.By collaborating with UiPath, a global software company that develops a platform for robotic process automation, and utilizing innovation funds, personnel will be able to increase productivity, accuracy and overall mission success through the help of bots.Air Force officials named the robotic process automation as a 2020 Air Force Spark Tank selectee earlier this year.“Think of RPA (robotic process automation) as a set of digital employees that work alongside you, expanding your workforce,” said Joel Cherkis, UiPath product management – private sector vice president, during an RPA demonstration at Hanscom AFB, Feb. 21.Once integrated into the computer system, the bots are able to learn behaviors from the human user, and then implement the algorithms to complete repetitive tasks, freeing the user to move onto other projects.“You can schedule the bots to work shifts just like you would a normal employee,” Cherkis said. “The only difference is you can schedule the bots to work through the night and on weekends and holidays.”The bots are currently being implemented across a variety of Air Force professions such as finance and accounting, human resources and law enforcement, Cherkis said.“The bots can also run as many processes as you need them to,” he said. “For example, a security forces squadron could have the bot run the background credentialing for a visitor, and then create the base pass.”Network connections cannot deter the bots either, explained David Babyak, UiPath regional vice president.“If there’s a delay in the network connectivity, the robot knows to wait and then proceed when the system is running,” Babyak said. “It frees up our people to continue with other tasks knowing the bot will handle it.”During a one-day trial implementation at Hanscom AFB, officials said the work-order processing speeds for telephone service requests and asset accountability increased by 75% with 100% accuracy, reducing the workload by four hours.“Based on the results we’ve seen so far, we’re hoping we can have this operational very quickly,” said William Ross, SC director.FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Hanscom AFB 



robotic 



process 



automation 



AFMC 



Air Force Materiel Command 



digital 



workforce 



Communications and Information Division 



UiPath 



software 



Spark Tank 



RPA Related Links
        Two teams tie to win Spark Tank 2020
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

 

I, James A. Israel, 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 John Deere Owner Trust 2011 (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 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 servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements 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 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 party: U.S. Bank National Association (as indenture trustee).

 
|                        | JOHN   DEERE OWNER TRUST 2011 |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                        |                          |   |   |
|                        |                          | By:    John Deere Capital Corporation |
|                        |                          | (Servicer) |
|                        |                          |   |   |
|                        |                          |   |   |
|                        |                          |   |   |
| Date: January 25, 2013 |                          | By: | */s/   James A. Israel* |   |
|                        |                          |   |   |
|                        |                          |   | James A. Israel |
|                        |                          |   |   |
|                        |                          |   | President |

 

----
Exhibit 31.1

Certifications

 

I, Thomas E. Capasse, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Ready Capital Corporation;

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, this report does 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.                                      [Omitted]

 

4.                                      [Omitted]

 

5.                                      [Omitted]

 

Date: May 14, 2020

 

|   | By:                            | /s/ Thomas E. Capasse |
|--------|--------------------------------|-----------------------|
|   | Name: Thomas E. Capasse        |
|   | Title: Chief Executive Officer |
<PAGE>


Exhibit 10.15

From: Robert.A.Salcetti@chase.com [mail to: Robert.A.Salcetti@chase.com]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 4:28 PM
To: Jruben@abfsonline.com; Steve.giroux@abfsonline.com
Cc: Michael_Nicholson/CHASE@restricted.chase.com
Subject: 10 day waiver-Balapointe

JPMorgan Chase is agreeable for a maximum 10 day waiver on the S-2 registration
(waiver expires on November 10, 2003) we discussed today with your counsel at
Blank Rome; Mike Nicholson will follow-up with a formal written amendment to the
ABFS-Balapoint agreement.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                     279,420
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  961
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           280,381   
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             280,381
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,079
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,554
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                 705,755
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               280,381 
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,231
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,274
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                957 
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   957 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
                               

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 367 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 367

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the Medicare 
                outpatient rehabilitation therapy caps.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 14, 2013

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the Medicare 
                outpatient rehabilitation therapy caps.

    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 ``Medicare Access to Rehabilitation 
Services Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. OUTPATIENT THERAPY CAP REPEAL.

    Section 1833 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(l)) is 
amended by striking subsection (g).
                                 <all>
```
* 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. 01-20804

Conference Calendar

 

DONALD RAY MIKE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BRADLE BACHMAN; FRANCIS CHERIAN;

GLENDA ADAMS; MS. KENT, Health Administrator,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CV-163

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

April 10, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donald Ray Mike, a Texas prisoner (# 423926), has filed a

notice of appeal from the district court’s denial of his “Motion

to Alter Judgment,” which was filed following the dismissal of

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit for failure to state a claim,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because it was filed more

than 10 days after the entry of the judgment, the “Motion to

Alter Judgment” was essentially a FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion for
No. 01-20804

-2-

relief from judgment. See Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat

Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc).

An appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is not an

appeal from the merits of the underlying judgment, In re Ta Chi

Navigation (Panama) Corp. S.A., 728 F.2d 699, 703 (5th Cir.

1984), and review of such a denial is for abuse of discretion

only. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enter., Inc., 38 F.3d

1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994). Under this standard, “[i]t is not

enough that the granting of relief might have been permissible,

or even warranted–-denial must have been so unwarranted as to

constitute an abuse of discretion.” Seven Elves, Inc. v.

Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). 

Mike has not remotely made such a showing in his appellate

brief. His appeal is wholly without merit and is thus frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. Accordingly, his appeal is DISMISSED. The dismissal 

of the instant appeal as frivolous and the district court’s

dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim each

count as a “strike” under the three-strikes provision of 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 

387 (5th Cir. 1996). Mike is thus cautioned that, once he

accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis

in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or

detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### W. Morrison v. I. Jalonick & Co.

(No. 805, Op. Book No. 2, p. 346.)

Appeal from Galveston County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 778. *Venue; suit improperly brought in county other than that of defendant's domicile.*Appellant shipped cotton to appellees in Galveston under a contract-by the terms of which appellees agreed to honor the drafts of appellant to the extent of $10 on each bale of cotton shipped, a bill of lading of the cotton to accompany each *428draft drawn, and if, on sale of the cotton, it did not bring as much as $40 per bale, appellant agreed to pay the appellees the deficit. Appellant resided in Rusk county. The cotton when sold brought less than $40 per bale, and the deficit amounted to $112.23, to recover -which this, suit was brought by appellees in Galveston county. Appellant pleaded in abatement that he was a resident of Rusk county, etc. The plea was sworn to, and in other respects sufficient. The plea was disregarded, and judgment rendered against appellant. *Held,*the court erred in not sustaining the plea in abatement. The appellant was entitled to be sued in the county of his residence, unless it was shown that he had contracted in writing to-pay the money in Galveston county, and no such contract was proved. [R. S. 1198.]

February 19, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.

Note.— Judge Winkler did not concur in tlie above opinion.