alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Air Force Inns selects eight finalists for Innkeeper AwardPublished June 19, 2017
                        
                        By Steve Warns
                        
                        
                        AFCEC Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-LACKLAND, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Eight U.S. Air Force installations were selected as finalists for the Air Force Innkeeper Award.
The award, managed by the lodging branch of the Air Force Services Activity, recognizes inns that provide the best hotel-type lodging and customer service to Air Force travelers.
“The objective is to encourage innkeepers to improve their management and operation of Air Force lodging facilities at the 88 Air Force installations worldwide, with the ultimate and intended beneficiary being the customer,” said Maj. Adam Baker, the Air Force Lodging chief.
Representing the large installation category, which consists of 286 bed spaces and higher, are Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, Eielson AFB, Alaska, Hurlburt Field, Florida and Incirlik Air Base, Turkey. Dover AFB, Delaware, Laughlin AFB, Texas, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho and Spangdahlem, AB, Germany, represent the small installations.
Two teams are conducting evaluations in June with winners to be announced late summer and honored in November at the Air Force Lodging Training Summit at MacDill AFB, Florida.
“The program promotes esprit de corps and affords lodging managers and their teams the opportunity to showcase mission sustaining support operations to Air Force leadership,” said Kevin Norton, the AFSVA lodging recapitalization chief. “The award promotes spirited competition, coupled with many new initiatives being adopted across the portfolio as they are showcased to the evaluation teams.”
The award’s emphasis is on celebrating the success of nominees as they build and sustain readiness and resiliency among Airmen and their families, Baker said.
“Rest and relaxation starts with a great stay and is important to every Airman,” the major said. “Pushing for and celebrating excellence not only benefits Air Force Inns, it promotes every family and traveler having a great stay.”Air Force Innkeeper Award 



Air Force Services Activity 



lodging 



travel 



Davis-Monthan 



Eielson 



Hurlburt Field 



Incirlik 



dover 



Laughlin 



mountain home 



Spangdahlem
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. ROBERT EDWARD KERR, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 606 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 24th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
#### Geo. J. Gammel v. Couts & Simpson.

(No. 1816, Op. Book No. 2, p. 463.)

Appeal from Shackelford Oounty.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1168. *Purchaser acquires no title from fraudulent vendor; forged order.*Gammel owned a herd of cattle in Jones county which was in charge of one Hamel. One De Long forged an order on Hamel, purporting to be signed by Mrs. Gammel, directing him to deliver nineteen head of these cattle to De Long, and upon this order De Long received the cattle and sold them to appellees. This suit was brought by appellant to recover of appellees the value of the cattle, and appellees had a verdict and judgment in their favor in the court below. *Held,*the verdict of the jury is without any evidence to support it. The proof shows that the cattle were Gammel’s. It is shown that De Long obtained possession of the cattle fraudulently. The universal and fundamental principle of our law is, that no man can be divested of his property without his consent, and consequently that even the honest purchaser under a defective title cannot hold *669against the true proprietor. [Dodd & Co. v. Arnold, 28 Tex. 100.] The good faith of appellees cannot invest them with the title to the property when De Long, their vendor, had none. [Case v. Jennings, 17 Tex. 662.]

November 2, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Young of Alaska) at 12 o'clock and 23 minutes 
p.m.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 473 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 473

To ensure that Federal Register notices submitted to the Bureau of Land 
              Management are reviewed in a timely manner.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2013

  Mr. Heller introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure that Federal Register notices submitted to the Bureau of Land 
              Management are reviewed in a timely manner.

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

SECTION 1. REVIEW OF CERTAIN FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES.

    If, by the date that is 45 days after the date on which a State 
Bureau of Land Management office has submitted a Federal Register 
notice to the Washington, DC, office of the Bureau of Land Management 
for Department of the Interior review, the review has not been 
completed--
            (1) the notice shall consider to be approved; and
            (2) the State Bureau of Land Management office shall 
        immediately forward the notice to the Federal Register for 
        publication.
                                 <all>
```
(logo)TORCHLIGHT

 

 

**ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust2011-C5Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through CertificatesSeries 2011-C5 (the “Trust”)

 

I,William A. Clarkson, on behalf of Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as specialservicer (the “Certifying Servicer”), certify to J.P. Morgan ChaseCommercial Mortgage Securities Corp. and its officers, directors andaffiliates, and with the knowledge and intent that they will rely upon thiscertification, that:

 

1.     I (or Servicing Officers under mysupervision) have reviewed the Certifying Servicer’s activities during the yearended December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) and the Certifying Servicer’sperformance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and

 

2.     To the best of my knowledge, based onsuch review, the Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations underthe Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

Date:February 28, 2019

 

 

TORCHLIGHTLOAN SERVICES, LLC

 

 

By:/s/ William A. Clarkson

Name:William A. Clarkson

Title:Authorized Signatory

 

 

280Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017

T212.883.2800   F 212.883.2560

Einfo@torchlightloanservices.com

www.torchlightinvestors.com
#### Thos. J. Moore v. Crenshaw & Luckey.

(No. 2375, R. Book No. 4, p. 229.)

Appeal from Travis County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 264. *City ordinance impounding and selling stock running at large; validity of.*By an ordinance of the city of Austin, it is provided that “ It shall not be lawful for the owner or keeper of any horses, mules, jacks, jennets, cattle, sheep, goats, hogs or other animals, except milch cows, as hereinafter provided by ordinance, to permit the same to run at large, day or night, within the city of Austin.” There are also other ordinances providing for the enforcement of this ordinance by the capture, impounding and sale of all such animals not redeemed before sale by the owner.

*Same.*M., a citizen of Coryell county, being in the vicinity of Austin city with a team of horses, which he turned loose, one of which strayed, and being found running at large in the streets was taken up and sold in compliance with said ordinances, sued the purchasers, and insisted: 1st. That the ordinances were invalid, inconsistent with the laws of the state, and void. 2d. That they did not operate upon non-residents of the corporation. *Held:*

1. That the city council of Austin had full power and legal authority to enact the impounding ordinances. [Waco v. Powell, 32 Tex. 258.]

2. That said ordinances are valid and binding, and operative upon all animals found running at large within the city limits in violation of the ordinances, and this without regard to whether or not such animals are owned by residents or non-residents of the city.

3. That plaintiff having turned his horse loose, it was by his own fault that the horse strayed into Austin, and the running at laige of the horse must be regarded as permission on the part of the owner within the meaning of the ordinance.

*106June 24, 1882.

4. That the horse having been sold in accordance with the ordinance, the purchaser thereof acquired a valid and perfect title, subject only to the plaintiff’s right to redeem, which right plaintiff has not seen proper to avail himself of.

*Authorities*in support of above propositions. A case directly in point in many respects is The Mayor of Carterville v. Lanham (S. C. Ga., Sept. 21, 1881), published in 13 vol. Law Reporter, No. 18, p. 552. [See, also, Dillon on Munic. Corp. (3d ed.) §§ 355, 356; 1 La. Ann. 385; 30 Ill. 459; 14 Gray, 52; 9 Allen, 266; 8 B. Monroe, 433; Waco v. Powell, 32 Tex. 258.]

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

**Servicer Compliance Statement of John Deere Capital Corporation**

 

I, Andrew Traeger, Vice President and Controller of John Deere Capital Corporation, certify:

 

A review of the activities of John Deere Capital Corporation (“JDCC”) for the period from November 1, 2011 through October 31, 2012 (the “Reporting Period”) and of JDCC’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 20, 2011 among JDCC, John Deere Receivables, Inc. and John Deere Owner Trust 2011 has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review JDCC has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 
| Date:   January 8, 2013 | John   Deere Capital Corporation |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                         |                             |
|                         |                             |
|                         |                             |
|                         | By                               | /s/   *Andrew Traeger* |   |
|                         |                             |   |
|                         |                             | Andrew   Traeger |
|                         |                             |   |
|                         |                             | Vice   President and Controller |

 

----
#### Bowser & Lemmons v. B. L. Willett et al.

(No. 2564, Op. Book No. 4.)

Appeal from Ellis County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 401. *County court; no authority to grant injunction to restrain a sale under execution from justice’s court.*County judges have no authority to issue an injunction in matters within the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, except it be where the jurisdiction of the county court had attached already by appeal or *certiorari,*and in such cases the writ issues in aid of the jurisdiction of the county court. [McMahon v. Dennis (Comm’rs of Appeals), *post,*p. 000; Grant v. Quinsell (Court Appeals), *post,*p. 000.]

In Carlisle v. Coffin & Price, Supreme Court, Austin Term, 1883, opinion by Watts, Commissioner, the sixteenth section of art. Y of the constitution is construed, and he says: “It seems that this declaration is susceptible of but one construction. The constitution limits and defines both the original and appellate jurisdiction of the county court. It has no power to supervise and control inferior courts, except in the mode given, either by appeal or *certiorari.*Hence the power to issue these writs is limited to matters, the jurisdiction of which has attached in the county court, either by its original or appellate jurisdiction. The county court has no power, aside from that conferred, to issue such writs, and it would seem from a fair construction of the language used, that, in conferring that power upon the county courts and judges thereof, that the intention was to limit its exercise to the enforcement of the jurisdiction of the county courts. In matters of which the justices’ courts have original jurisdiction, and the county court has appellate jurisdiction, if the county court or judge thereof could issue such writs before that appellate jurisdiction had attached by the modes prescribed, that would be giving the county court not only appellate jurisdiction but general supervisory control over the justice’s court. Besides, it would be *174to substitute their writs for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction in lieu of the modes prescribed by law.”

May 23, 1883.

Eeversed and dismissed.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Cyber Direct Commissioning, Rated Preparatory Program, One-of-a-kind Elephant WalkPublished April 28, 2023
                        
                        By Senior Airman Saomy Sabournin
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)      --**
                In this week’s look around the Air Force, an evolution in recruiting cybersecurity officers, the rated preparatory program gives active-duty Airmen a chance to become rated officers and an historic gathering of student Airmen and aircraft might be the largest “elephant walk” in modern Air Force history. (Hosted by Staff. Sgt. Milton Hamilton)



02:00




**Watch on DVIDS | Watch on YouTube**
For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.Sheppard AFB 



elephant walk 



partnership 



Rated Preparatory Program 



Civil Air Patrol 



RPP 



cyber 



Cyber Direct Commissioning Program 



Cyberspace Warfare Operation 



AETC 



AF 



Air Force 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



AFTV Related Links
        Cyber Direct Commissioning Program enhancement to onboard future cyber officers
            
            Rated Preparatory Program: Master sergeant gains experience for rated career opportunities
            
            Sheppard AFB ‘elephant walk’ asserts training’s role in airpower
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 56118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23016]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group; Function, Integration and 
Rehabilitation Sciences Subcommittee.
    Date: October 12, 2010.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Anne Krey, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National 
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive 
Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6908, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d1c16494c123d131415531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="77161c43461837191e1f59101801">[email protected]</span></a>.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 8, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-23016 Filed 9-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

October 29, 2014 
 Mr. James P.
Moniz 
 Dear Jim: 
 I am pleased to confirm our offer for the
position of Chief Financial Officer reporting to Wendell Blonigan, Chief Executive Officer and President. Your starting base salary will be $315,000 on an annualized basis. Wendell Blonigan, CEO will recommend to the Board of Directors that you be
granted options on 50,000 shares of Intevac stock and 25,000 restricted stock units, vested over a four-year period. The option price will be set based on the stock value on the day the option is granted. 

In addition, you are eligible to participate in Intevac’s Senior Executive Incentive Program. Your 2014 target incentive compensation is 65% of your
annual base pay and is based on: 
  

	 	•	 	the Company meeting its financial targets for Profitability, and 

  

	 	•	 	accomplishment of your Divisional/Individual MBO’s 

 For 2014, the company guarantees 2 months of your
target Annual Incentive bonus ($34,125). 
 To the extent that you or the Company exceed or fall short of the target performance, the actual bonus payment
may be more or less than the target bonus. The maximum bonus is 2x of your target percent. 
 As a regular employee of Intevac you will be eligible to
participate in a benefit package, which includes medical/dental/vision/life/disability insurance, 401(k) plan, stock purchase plan, and educational reimbursement for approved courses. This package also provides for 10 paid holidays’ each year
and accrual of Personal Time-Off (PTO) at a rate of 18 days per year for the first three years. If you would like to view our benefits online please go to: www.arlengroup.com/benefits1. User ID: intevac and Password:
XXXX. (case sensitive) 
 This offer of employment does not imply or give cause for any claim to employment tenure, rights, or
benefits not stated herein or specifically provided for in writing hereafter. Either party to this agreement may terminate the agreement at any time for any reason or no reason. This at will nature of employment can not be altered, except upon
written agreement signed by the president of Intevac. 
 This offer is contingent on your execution of the Company’s standard Proprietary Information
and Inventions Agreement, which is attached. If you accept this offer, the terms described in this letter and the Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement shall be the terms of your employment. No other promises, representations or terms
have been agreed to by Intevac. 







 In order to comply with the Federal Immigration Reform Act, your employment pursuant to this offer is contingent
on you providing the legally required proof of your identity and authorization to work in the United States. 
 We look forward to having you join the
Intevac Team on Monday, November 3rd. Please sign the enclosed copy in the space provided,execute the enclosed Proprietary Information Agreement and return to me. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Kimberly Burk 

Kimberly Burk 

Vice President of Human Resources 

I have read and accept this offer of employment: 
 /s/
James P. Moniz        10/29/14 

signature                         
   date
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4555-H4556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  REPUBLICANS WANT TO REFORM MEDICARE

  (Mr. BOEHNER asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, here we go, once again, down the path of 
spreading fear, fear that we are going to slash this and slash that.
  [[Page H4556]] The American people know instinctively that a 
government cannot continue to spend money that it does not have. Only 
one time in the last 50 years has Congress actually balanced the 
budget.
  We, as Republicans, believe that balancing the budget is our contract 
with our children, because we cannot continue to spend money that we do 
not have, giving our children and theirs the bill.
  When it comes to Medicare, we are going to protect, preserve, and 
improve Medicare. We are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars 
more over the next 7 years as we balance the budget. Medicare spending 
is going to increase from $4,700 per enrollee to $6,400 at the end of 7 
years.
  So when you hear people talking about cutting Medicare, they are 
wrong. We are going to increase spending for Medicare and protect this 
program that is so vital to our seniors.

                          ____________________
```
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Andrew Silberfein, certify that:

 

1.                   I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Rouse Properties, Inc.; and

 

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.

 
| Date: April 29,   2016 | /s/ ANDREW   SILBERFEIN   |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------|
|                        | Andrew   Silberfein       |
|                        | Chief Executive   Officer |

 

----
**
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Subsidiaries of FS KKR Capital Corp. II**

 

**Name of Subsidiary**
  
**State of Incorporation orOrganization**
Ambler Funding LLC  DelawareBrewerytown Funding LLC  DelawareBroomall Funding LLC  DelawareBurholme Funding LLC  DelawareCCT II SE I LLC  DelawareCCT II SE II LLC  DelawareCenter City Funding LLC  DelawareCheltenham Funding LLC  DelawareCobbs Creek LLC  DelawareCooper River LLC  DelawareDarby Creek LLC  DelawareDunlap Funding LLC  DelawareDunning Creek LLC  DelawareFSIC II Investments, Inc.  DelawareFSIC III Investments, Inc.  DelawareFSIC IV Investments, LLC  DelawareGermantown Funding LLC  DelawareIC II Altus Investments, LLC  DelawareIC II American Energy Investments, Inc.  DelawareIC II Arches Investments, LLC  DelawareIC II Northern Investments, LLC  DelawareIC III Altus Investments, LLC  DelawareIC III Arches Investments, LLC  DelawareIC III Northern Investments, LLC  DelawareJefferson Square Funding LLC  DelawareJuniata River LLC  DelawareMeadowbrook Run LLC  DelawareWissahickon Creek, LLC  Delaware**