alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# News

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

# Dover AFB supports Army in Operation Viking

              - Published  July 27, 2022
              -                             By Airman 1st Class Cydney Lee                                                    
              - 436th Airlift Wing Public Affairs

**DOVER AIR FORCE BASE, Del. (AFNS) --  **
**Dover Air Force Base** participated in Operation Viking, the largest Army Reserve brigade deployment exercise to date, at Joint Base Cape Cod, Massachusetts, July 18-20.

Operation Viking was a high-intensity joint service exercise that consisted of range training, mission-essential civil affairs training and ambitious airborne operations. The exercise relied on a multitude of military units to execute the mission, including Dover AFB’s own 9th Airlift Squadron, whose primary role in the exercise was to provide air transportation.

“The 9th AS supported Operation Viking with rapid deployment of Army ground assets,” said Capt. Matthew Bohannon, 9th AS tactics officer and C-5M Super Galaxy pilot. “The Army Reserve [conducted] all their troop movement into the ‘theater’ via airlift. We provided over 90 percent of that airlift.”

The total amount of cargo transported was 166 Soldiers, 33 Humvees, four Light Medium Tactical Vehicles, one trailer and eight pallets, for a total weight of 502,600 pounds.

Joint service exercises such as Operation Viking provide an opportunity for service members to test their abilities in a controlled and simulated environment.

“The mission was beneficial to the crew because we could practice engine-running loads and offloads, which is something we rarely do,” Bohannon said. “Figuring out where all the limiting factors were for moving such a large amount of people was beneficial and figuring out how we can best plan in the future if we had to do this for real.”

The collaboration not only provided a rare training opportunity for the 9th AS, but also for the Army Reserve.

“It was the first time many of the [Soldiers] had assisted in the loading/unloading process of their own deployable cargo,” said 1st Lt. Kyle Brichacek, 9th AS tactics officer and C-5M Super Galaxy pilot. “That not only helps our crews increase mission velocity but also helps train many of their personnel.”

Operation Viking served as a catalyst for increased collaboration between the U.S. Army Reserves, U.S. Air Force and U.S. Coast Guard.

“This exercise was a phenomenal opportunity to work with joint partners in the dynamic environment. Our crews experienced a unique opportunity to practice mission type orders scaled to a multi-ship force package to improve our command and control,” said Lt. Col. Jim Shepard, 9th Airlift Squadron commander. “Operation Viking gave our Airmen a chance to think through and tackle the challenges we will face in the future fight in degraded and contested environments.”

LRUSAFAFAir ForceAMCAir Mobility CommandDover AFBArmytrainingexercisepartnership
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACINTO VELA-FLORES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-71926 

Agency No. A200-150-228 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 12, 2021**

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Jacinto Vela-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his application for 

withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the legal question 

* 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

OCT 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-71926 

of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that 

deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and 

regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We 

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We 

deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not err in concluding that Vela-Flores failed to establish 

membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 

1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 

social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of 

members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with 

particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting 

Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). We reject as 

unsupported by the record Vela-Flores’ contentions that the agency erred in the 

particular social group analysis. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Vela-Flores 

otherwise failed to establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected 

ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s 

“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random 

violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). 

Thus, Vela-Flores’ withholding of removal claim fails.
3 20-71926 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Vela-Flores failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See 

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as unsupported by 

the record Vela-Flores’ contentions that the agency failed to consider evidence or 

otherwise erred in its analysis of his CAT claim. 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
10-K/A
 
 Exhibit 32.2
 May 14, 2020
 Via EDGAR
 Securities and Exchange Commission
 100 F. Street, N.E.
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 Re:Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)
 Ladies and Gentlemen:
 In connection with the Annual Report of Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:
 (1)    The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)    The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Trust.
 The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Annual Report or as a separate disclosure document. In giving the foregoing certifications, the undersigned has relied to the extent she considers reasonable on information provided to her by Chesapeake Energy Corporation.
 
 The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.Trustee for Chesapeake Granite Wash TrustBy:/s/ Sarah NewellSarah NewellVice President
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] is recognized for 5 minutes.

  [Mr. GONZALEZ addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter 
in the Extensions of Remarks.]

                          ____________________
```
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8
v. NO. 30,713 9 RUSSELL REED, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 12 J. Richard Brown, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Nicole Beder, Assistant Attorney General 15 Santa Fe, NM 16 for Appellee 17 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 Nia Rucker, Assistant Public Defender 20 Carlsbad, NM 21 for Appellant 22 MEMORANDUM OPINION 23 KENNEDY, Judge. 24 Defendant appeals his conviction for aggravated battery on a household 252 member. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing summary 1 reversal on a basis that the State offered insufficient evidence to establish victim was 2 a “household member” within the meaning of NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-11(A) 3 (2010). The State has responded that it does not oppose reversal of Defendant’s 4 conviction on that basis. 5 Accordingly, we reverse Defendant’s conviction. 6
IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

___________________________________ 8 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 9 WE CONCUR: 10

___________________________ 11 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 12

___________________________ 13 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 14
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2288

In re: DAN BRITTON HODGES, JR., 

Petitioner. 

No. 20-2291

In re: TRAVIS LAMAR WALL, 

Petitioner. 

No. 20-2293

In re: LAMARE P. JORDAN, 

Petitioner. 

No. 20-2294

In re: KUNTA KENTA REDD, 

Petitioner. 

On Petitions for a Writ of Mandamus. 

(3:17-cr-00037-REP-1; 2:17-cr-00034-RAJ-RJK-1; 7:08-cr-00043-D-1)
2

Submitted: February 23, 2021 Decided: February 25, 2021

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. 

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dan Britton Hodges, Jr., Travis Lamar Wall, Lamare P. Jordan, Kunta Kenta Redd, 

Petitioners Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
3

PER CURIAM: 

Dan Britton Hodges, Jr., Travis Lamar Wall, Lamare P. Jordan, and Kunta Kenta 

Redd have filed petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking orders from this court directing 

federal officials to take steps to protect inmates at the Federal Correctional Institution 

Ashland from COVID-19. We conclude that petitioners are not entitled to mandamus 

relief. 

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Mandamus relief is available only when the 

petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795. 

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 

503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 

The relief sought by petitioners is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, 

we deny the petitions for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITIONS DENIED
M A N D A T E

TO THE 117TH DISTRICT COURT of NUECES COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 16th day of

October, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Rudy Siller, Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00129-CR (Tr.Ct.No. 13-CR-2853-B)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 6th day of January, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK

FILE COPY
EXHIBIT 4.12


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 

PLEDGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment No. 2 to Pledge and Security Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into effective as of [________],
2014 (the “Effective Date”), by and among the undersigned parties for the purpose of amending that certain Pledge
and Security Agreement dated as of October 19, 2011 and amended as of December 15, 2011 (the “Pledge and Security Agreement”).
The undersigned parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1.The undersigned parties acknowledge
that Holdings shall offer and sell up to $1,000,000,000 aggregate principal amount of L Bonds (the “L Bonds”),
which shall be offered and sold as “Securities” under the Indenture. The L Bonds shall be Secured Obligations for purposes
of the Pledge and Security Agreement.


 


2.Except as set forth above, the terms
and conditions of the Pledge and Security Agreement shall remain unaffected and unchanged. Any capitalized terms not otherwise
defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning set forth in the Pledge and Security Agreement.


 


In
Witness Whereof, each of the parties have executed this Amendment No. 2 to Pledge and Security Agreement to be effective
as of the Effective Date.


 


	
        GWG
        Holdings, Inc. (Grantor)

         

         

        By: _______________________

        Name: _____________________

        Title: ______________________

         
	
        Jon
        R. Sabes (Grantor)

         

         

         _______________________ 

         

         

	
        GWG Life
        Settlements, LLC (Grantor)

         

         

        By: _______________________

        Name: ____________________

        Title: ______________________

         
	
        Steven
        F. Sabes (Grantor)

         

         

        _______________________

         

	
        Bank
        of Utah (Trustee)

         

         

        By: _______________________

        Name: _____________________

        Title: ______________________
Exhibit 35.5



|     |  |  |  |                                                                          
|---- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  | Corporate Trust Services 9062 Old Annapolis
Road Columbia, Maryland 21045

Citibank N.A.

17g-5 Information
Provider

ratingagencynotice@citi.com

RE: Annual Statement
as to Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), as Master Servicer,
hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2013 (the Reporting Period):

(a) a review of Wells
Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement listed on Schedule A hereto (the Servicing Agreement) has been made under my supervision; and

(b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all
material respects throughout the Reporting Period, except as described on Schedule B hereto.

February 27, 2014



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
|Kristen Ann Cronin    
|Vice President        
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO



---

Schedule A

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2011, for Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2011-2, by and among Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc., as
Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer and Securities Administrator, and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee.1



|1 | The Pooling and Servicing Agreement was amended and restated effective January 1, 2014 to reflect the resignation of Wells Fargo as the Securities Administrator and Paying Agent (among other roles). See the Form
8-K filed on January 6, 2014 for additional information.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



2



---

Schedule B

None



3
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RALPH L. KENNY.

April 10, 1978.

Certification to the Superior Court, Law Division, is granted.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT L. BRANCH.

Nov. 8, 1979.

Petition for certification dismissed as having been improvidently granted. Justice Schreiber would reverse the Appellate Division and reinstate the conviction.
News United States Air Force
 US, Thailand sign landmark information exchange agreementPublished June 8, 2022
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force International Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --**
                **Kelli L. Seybolt**, deputy under secretary of the Air Force, **International Affairs** and Lt. Gen. Somkiat Sampan, Thailand’s Director-General of Defence Science and Technology Department, signed a milestone agreement June 1 to collaborate on defense technologies.
The leaders signed the information exchange agreement during a virtual ceremony. Titled "Remote Sensing for Base Perimeter Defense," it is the first International Armaments Cooperation collaboration between the U.S. Department of Defense and Thai Ministry of Defence.
“This important step forward is just the latest manifestation of our deep and enduring relationship,” Seybolt said. “United by our shared commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific, Thailand is our oldest friend and ally in Asia, and our close cooperation reflects a friendship of nearly two centuries.”
Somkiat added: “Our relationship and our cooperation in the past ... made this [information exchange agreement] possible.”
The topic for the agreement was first proposed by Thailand, and overlapped with current research activities and interests of the U.S. Air Force. There are now inexpensive, field-deployable technologies that have the potential to defend installations using automated remote sensing.
The agreement will allow both parties to advance the theory and testing needed for systems that can sense, detect, and classify installation threats. Commercial off-the-shelf prototypes from both Thailand and the U.S. will be tested, and feedback shared.
Exploratory discussions were first held at the Royal Thai Air Force Academy with representation from the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology, the U.S. Air Force Academy, Secretary of the Air Force International Affairs, and the Joint United States Military Advisory Group Thailand in November 2019.
“It is a thrill to expand the scope of our security cooperation with Thailand,” Seybolt concluded. “And it is our sincere hope that this is only the start of a robust series of cooperative activities in next-generation defense technologies.”FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



SAF/IA 



Secretary of the Air Force International Affairs 



Kelli Seybolt 



Lt. Gen. Somkiat Sampan 



agreement 



Signing 



milestone 



information exchange 



One Air Force 



readiness 



International Armaments Cooperation 



Thai Ministry of Defence 



relationship 



Allies 



leader priorities 



Remote Sensing for Base Perimeter Defense 



international Affairs 



USAFA 



AFIT 



RTAF 



Royal Thai Air Force
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1
       
<S>                        <C>   
<PERIOD-TYPE>              3-MOS            
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1997                     
<CASH>                                        19748
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                298387
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                  199329
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1416992    
<PP&E>                                      1493508
<DEPRECIATION>                              1228157
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1899279   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        123051
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                       3350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                        0                    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1899279
<SALES>                                      303510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             347667 
<CGS>                                        183715
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                121417 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2045
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               42535 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  18750
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  23786
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .01            
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .01
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.4



CERTIFICATION



I, Donna Blank, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of ZAIS Financial Corp.; 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 | By:    |  | /s/ Donna Blank                      
|-------------------- | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|                     | Name:  |  | Donna Blank                          
|                     | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the 
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

           By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
       S. 799. A bill to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 
     to exclude certain bank products from the definition of a 
     deposit; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs.
     

                          ____________________
```