alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,572
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,398
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,272
<PP&E>                                          83,116
<DEPRECIATION>                                  60,721
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,766
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,596
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,037)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,766
<SALES>                                          8,683
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,683
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,165
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,928)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,928)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,928)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.13)


</TABLE>
EX-35.1
Servicer Compliance Statement
For SEMT 2011-2

(i)  a review of the Seller's activities during the immediately preceding
     calendar year and of its performance under the applicable Agreement or any
     applicable Reconstitution Agreement during such period has been made under
     such officer's supervision, and
(ii) to the best of such officers' knowledge, based on such review, the Seller
     has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Agreement and any
     applicable Reconstitution Agreement in all material respects throughout
     such calendar year.


First Republic Bank
By:    /s/ Chris Zweifel 3/3/12
Name:  Chris Zweifel
Title: Director
```

  EX-34.5
(logo) Grant Thornton

Grant Thornton LLP
201 S College Street, Suite 2500
Charlotte, NC 28244-0100

T 704.632.3500
F 704.334.7701
www.GrantThornton.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Board of Directors
TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria ("Management's Report"), that TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc (the
"Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2011, except for those criteria noted as not applicable (N/A)
with Exhibit A. The transactions covered by this report are only those
transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust or operating
advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the "Platform").
Reference Exhibit B for the transactions covered by this examination. Management
is responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the
Platform based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, including
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting
the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities
related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our
testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed
transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was
not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to
the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company's
servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that
our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination
does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria.

Grant Thornton LLP
U.S. member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd.

(page)

(logo) Grant Thornton

2

In our opinion, management's assertion that TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc
complied with the applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit A and
Exhibit B as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011 for the Platform is
fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Charlotte, North Carolina
March 1, 2012

Grant Thornton LLP
U.S. member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd.
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1015
                        TRADE DEFICIT WITH JAPAN

  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, the battle for a balanced budget is not 
taking place in the Halls of Congress. The battle for a balanced budget 
is raging in the Pacific over the protectionist trade policies of 
Japan. You know that, I know that, and the American worker, they 
absolutely know it. Watch them at election time.
  I commend President Clinton for his efforts. The President's fight is 
absolutely right. I just hope at the last minute they do not make 
another compromise washed-down deal.
  Let me say this: The hammer is in the hands of Congress. I recommend 
imposing a 15-percent across-the-broad tariff on Japanese products, all 
products until they open their market. Think about it. That worked for 
Washington. That worked for Lincoln. And that worked for Japan.
  There is nothing wrong with winning and losing is contagious. Let us 
join the President's fight. Let us take action against Japan. They are 
not going to open their doors on a voluntary request.

                          ____________________
```
# News

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

# AFMC plays key role in record Air Force DITPR compliance

              - Published  July 10, 2021
              -                             By Marisa Alia-Novobilski                                                    
              - Air Force Materiel Command

**WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFNS) --  **
The Air Force made history recently by becoming the first agency ever to achieve a 100% compliance rating in the **Department of Defense Information Technology Portfolio Repository**.With nearly 700 IT investments totaling more than $1 billion, **Air Force Materiel Command** manages one-third of the Air Force portfolio and played a significant part in this history-making achievement for the service.“The Air Force has only been able to achieve 99% compliance until this recent report,” said Rebecca Holbrook, AFMC Communications Directorate, Assurance Division representative. “A 100% rating is no easy task, with over 200 questions covering each investment in the area of budget, the**Federal Information Security Management Act**, records management, **Section 508 compliance** and more. It was a team effort, and we’re proud to be part of this historical achievement for the service.”The DITPR is a web-based system that tracks all DOD IT systems, to include basic identifying information, acronyms, sponsoring component contacts and more. The information in the system provides senior leaders and decision-makers with a comprehensive view of DOD inventory, portfolios and capabilities, and supports resourcing decisions across the enterprise.All AFMC IT investments are required to be registered in the Air Force Information Technology Investment Portfolio Suite, which feeds the DITPR record. The other services maintain equivalent repositories that feed the DITPR. Service and agency chief information officers ensure completeness of the inventory and data accuracy annually.Among the mission-critical and mission-essential IT systems tracked, some of the everyday AFMC systems listed in the DITPR include the Command Human Resources Intelligence System, Education and Training Management System, Reliability and Maintainability Information System, Depot Maintenance Accounting and Production System, and the Automated Civil Engineer System, among others. A separate application tracks systems that reside on the DOD Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET).“This was a big win for AFMC and the Air Force,” Holbrook said. “Reaching DITPR 100% compliance ensures information-technology investments are managed to support the Air Force’s vision, mission and goals, and ensures efficient and effective delivery of capabilities to the warfighter.”Please visit the common access card-enabled DITPR **website** for additional information.

FSUSAFAFAir ForceAir Force Materiel CommandAFMCDepartment of Defense Information Technology Portfolio RepositoryDITPRWright-Patterson Air Force Basehistorical achievementinformation technology

#             Related Links        

-  DOD Information Technology Portfolio Repository (CaC required)
BG

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0132

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW ROBERT ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including May 20, 2023, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

April 20 2023

04/20/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0132
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00002-CR

Gabriel Paul Salas a/k/a Gabriel P. 

Salas

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County (1327362D)

February 20, 2014

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
#### J. A. Davis, Adm’r, v. J. D. McDowell.

(No. 2779, Op. Book No. 4.)

Appeal from Falls County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 380. *Counterclaim; legal requisites of.*Davis, as administrator of Wicks, sued McDowell on a sworn account. In the courts below there was no denial by McDowell of the correctness or justice of the account, but on the contrary it was admitted by him to be correct for the full amount thereof, and his only defense was the counterclaim which he pleaded. This counterclaim was based upon the breach of an alleged contract between Wicks and McDowell, by which McDowell claimed he was to receive from Wicks a commission of fifteen per cent, upon all sales made in Falls county of the Gullet cotton gin, for which gin Wicks was general agent. That sales of said gin had been made in said county by *162other parties, and under said contract he was entitled to commissions thereon as charged in his counterclaim. *Held,*that even if appellee had established his counterclaim, which he failed to do, he was not entitled to have it considered and allowed in this suit. His claim was for uuliquidated and uncertain damages, founded on a breach of contract, while the claim sued on was founded on a certain demand for goods sold and delivered at a fixed price. [Rev. Stats, art. 619.] Nor did said counterclaim arise out of, nor was it incident to or connected with, the cause of action sued upon, but arose out of an entirely independent alleged contract.

June 9, 1883.

§ 381. *Practice in court of appeals as to reversing and rendering judgment.*Even where the cause in the lower court has been tried by a jury, still if there is no question of fact which it is necessary should be determined by another trial, this court will reverse the j udgment and render such judgment as should have been rendered in the court below.

Reversed and rendered.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 43 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 43

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
           Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,  That subsection (b) of 
section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking 
out the dollar limita-

tion contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof 
$9,815,000,000,000.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 17, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 43

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

           Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WALTER J. ACEITUNO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

 Respondent.

No. 21-268

Agency No.

A073-396-663

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Walter J. Aceituno, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against 

* 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

AUG 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-268

Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 

F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

Because Aceituno failed to contest the BIA’s determination that he waived 

challenge to the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal, we do not 

address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT deferral of 

removal because the record does not compel the conclusion that Aceituno’s past 

harm constituted torture, and Aceituno failed to show it is more likely than not he 

will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if 

returned to Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); 

see also Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 2007) (detention and 

multiple beatings did not rise to the level of torture).

The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
News United States Air Force
 First unmanned QF-16 flight takes placePublished Sept. 24, 2013
                        
                        By 2nd Lt. Andrea Valencia
                        
                        
                        325th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) --**
                The QF-16 full scale aerial target's inaugural unmanned flight occurred Sept. 19. 
The 82nd Aerial Targets Squadron and Boeing Co. conducted the flight, which is the first step in a two year process to phase out the QF-4 full scale aerial target. 
"The QF-4 did a good job for many years, but it's time to turn the page in the aerial target program. This program will bring us into the 4th generation aircraft," said Lt. Col. Ryan Inman, the 82nd ATRS commander. "And will provide us with a mission capable, very sustainable aerial target to take us into the next 10 to 20 years."
A pilot performed all normal preflight checks before climbing out of the cockpit and locking the canopy from the outside. Control was then turned over to Thomas Mudge, a 82nd ATRS pilot controller, sitting in a control room on the opposite side of base. The QF-16 took off at 3 p.m. for an hour long mission profile including take off, conducting a series of simulated maneuvers and reaching supersonic speeds before returning to base and landing. 
"The flight itself went very well," Mudge said. "Its performance and abilities are great and we're looking forward to this airplane."
The first QF-16 was delivered to Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., in November 2012 for operational and developmental testing to ensure their viability for aerial targets. The QF-16 is a supersonic reusable full-scale aerial target modified from an F16 Fighting Falcon. The emergence of U.S. 5th generation fighters such as the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning means American forces need an advanced target, similar to what they would actually find on the battle field. 
"It takes it to the next generation, which now provides the shooters an aircraft that is completely a replication of current real world situations," Inman said. "The new targets will allow the Air Force and allied nations to have a realistic understanding of what they could face."
With successful testing at Tyndall AFB complete, the targets will be now move to Holloman AFB, N.M., to begin testing on an air-to-ground system. They will be part of live-fire testing before being sent back to Tyndall AFB for operation. 
The 82nd ATRS is part of the 53rd Weapons Evaluation Group, which falls under the 53rd Wing at Eglin AFB, Fla. The unit operates the Department of Defense's only full-scale aerial target program, which provides Air Force, Navy, Marine and Army customers targets for developmental and operational tests.full scale aerial target 



Tyndall Air Force Base 



Florida 



QF-16
#### E. R. Braley v. Jas. W. Bailey.

(No. —, Op. Book No. 2, p. 384.)

Appeal from Gonzales County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 7 90. *Distress warrant; petition in case of, must be filed on or before appearance day.*Appellee sued out a distress warrant for rent against appellant, September 3, 1878, The writ was made returnable to the county court on the first Monday in November, 1878, that being the 4th day of the month and the day on which began a regular term of the county court for civil business. Appellee filed his petition in the case on Saturday, the 9th day .of November, 1878. Appellant moved to quash the *435proceedings and dismiss the suit, because the petition was filed too late. *Held,*article 3120 of the Revised Statutes provides that 1 ‘When the warrant is made returnable to the district or county court, the plaintiff shall not be obliged to file his petition before suing out said warrant, but may file the same on or before the appearance day of the term of the court to which said papers are returnable.” This article is an exception to the general rule that all civil suits in the district or county courts shall be commenced by petition filed, etc. In attachment and sequestration cases, if in the district or county courts, the petition must be filed, — the suit begun before the writ can legally be issued. The remedy to the landlord by distress warrant is speedy, effectual and harsh. When he seeks to avail himself of it, he must strictly comply with every requirement of the law upon which his right to it depends. The provision of the statute which requires that he shall file his petition on or before the appearance day of the court to which the writ has been returned, is unconditional and imperative, and must be strictly complied with. This requirement of the law is not affected by the want of service of citation upon the defendant. The plaintiff must file his petition within the time prescribed, whether the defendant has been served with citation or not. The court erred in not sustaining the motion of appellant to quash the distress warrant.

March 16, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
IA 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 80 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting 

the penalty of death. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 16, 2008 

Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota introduced the following joint resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States prohibiting the penalty of death. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HJ 80 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

2 ‘‘Neither the United States nor any State, nor any 

3 person acting under the authority of the United States 

4 or a State, shall impose or carry out the penalty of 

5 death.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS