alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Achieving art of the possible through partnershipsPublished Sept. 15, 2014
                        
                        By Master Sgt. Tammie Moore
                        
                        
                        Air Force District of Washington Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                In an operating environment focused on discovering new ways to save time, Airmen and civilian partners gathered at the 2014 Air Force Association’s Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition to listen to a presentation titled “Achieving the Art of the Possible” Sept. 15.
Lt. Gen. Bruce A. Litchfield, the Air Force Sustainment Center commander, briefed the audience about the “Achieving Art of the Possible, The AFSC Way,"and how its implementation helped shrink aircraft overhaul, engine repair and supply component turn times, all while driving down costs.
According to the AFSC talking paper, the model design ensures everyone is shooting for the same result and there are common goals for the entire enterprise. 
This concept was critical to establishing more cost-effective operations across AFSC’s three air logistics complexes, three air base wings, two supply chain management wings and multiple remote operating locations; incorporating more than 32,000 military and civilian personnel. In addition, AFSC provides installation support to more than 75,000 personnel working in 140 associate units at the three bases.
“When we stood up AFSC, we tried to learn from the best of the bests in industry,” Litchfield said. “So we wanted to put a system in place (that allowed us to) not only be the best at what we do within the Air Force, the best at what we do within the Department of Defense, but the best at what we do not matter where we are worldwide. I’m not telling you we’re perfect in any way, shape or form, but we have had some great results.”
The AFSC Way, which focuses on people, processes and resources, led to operational commanders receiving aircraft back 20 percent faster and improved supply support by 11 percent and 9 percent two years running.
“We have provided more aircraft and more parts to the field, and we have done it at a significantly reduced cost,” Litchfield said. “In fiscal year 2015, we gave the Air Force back $500 million. What that is allowing us to do is to get more readiness at less cost for our Air Force.”
To take the program to the next level, AFSC is working to educate civilian partners on the model.
This allows industry to know what to expect from the Air Force and helps them become better partners, Litchfield said. “It is all about integration with how we do business. It is not working harder, it is not about working longer, it is about bringing to the resources together.”
To read “Art of the Possible,” click here.2014 Air Force Association’s Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition 



AFA 



Air Force Sustainment Center 



AFSC 



“Achieving Art of the Possible 



The AFSC Way"
Exhibit 4.31


English Translation for Reference


 


Supplemental
Agreement to Loan Contract


 


Party A: Agria Brother Biotech (Shenzhen)
Co., Ltd.


 


Party B: Chen Jiezhen, with ID card number:
[Redacted]


 


Party C: Lai Fulin, with ID card number:
[Redacted]


 


Whereas:


 


		1.	Party A and Party B entered into a Loan Contract on November 3, 2009 for an amount of RMB1,500,000;



 


		2.	Party A and Party C entered into a Loan Contract on March 13, 2013 for an amount of RMB1,500,000;



 


		3.	Party B and Party C entered into an Equity Transfer Agreement on March 13, 2013 for transferring
5% equity interest in Shenzhen PGW Seeds Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Shenzhen Zhongyuan Agriculture Co., Ltd.)



 


Party A, Party B and Party C have reached
the following agreement in respect of the provision of a loan by Party A to Party B after friendly consultation:


 


		1.	Party B agrees that Party C shall not be required to pay the equity transfer prices to Party B
in accordance with the Equity Transfer Agreement dated March 13, 2013;



 


			Party C agrees that Party A shall not be required to provide the loan under the Loan Contract dated
March 13, 2013 to Party C;



 


			Upon completion of the equity transfer, Party A will waive any repayment obligations of Party B
under the Loan Contract dated November 3, 2009.



 


		2.	Upon completion of the equity transfer, the Exclusive Call Option Contract and the Equity Pledge
Contract entered into between Party B and Party A on November 3, 2009 will be terminated.



 


		3.	This Contract is executed in three originals and each of the parties shall keep one original. All
of them shall have the same legal effect.



 


		4.	This Contract shall become effective after it is signed and sealed by Party A and signed by Party
B and Party C.



 




    	 



    	 



    

 


(This is the signature page)


 


Party A: Agria Brother Biotech (Shenzhen)
Co., Ltd.


 


[Chop of Agria Brother Biotech (Shenzhen)
Co., Ltd. is affixed]


 


/s/


 


Party B: Chen Jiezhen


/s/ Chen Jiezhen


 


Party C: Lai Fulin


/s/ Lai Fulin


 


Date of execution: March 13, 2013
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Daily Medical Equipment Distribution Center, Inc., as Assignee of Mendoza, Juan, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Global Liberty Insurance, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered May 21, 2014. The order held defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in abeyance pending an application to the Workers' Compensation Board to determine the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law.</p><p>ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon plaintiff's assignor's alleged eligibility for workers' compensation benefits. The Civil Court held the motion in abeyance pending an application to the Workers' Compensation Board to determine the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law. Plaintiff appeals.</p><p>The order appealed from did not decide defendant's motion but instead, as noted, held the motion in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board as to whether plaintiff's assignor had been acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident and whether, therefore, workers' compensation benefits might be available (<i>see O'Rourke v Long</i>, <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>41 NY2d 219 [1976]). Thus, the order is not appealable as of right (<i>see</i> CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; <i>Acunto v Stewart Ave. Gardens, LLC</i>, 26 AD3d 305 [2006]) and, under the circumstances, we decline to grant leave to appeal.</p><p>Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 08, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 35.8



LOGO

REGULATION AB

SECTION 1123 COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.

901 Semmes Avenue, MTG-1705

Richmond, VA 23224

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Reference is made to that certain Regulation AB Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2006, between SunTrust Bank (the Lockbox) and SunTrust
Mortgage, Inc. (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings given to such terms in the Agreement.

A
review of the Banks activities during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period) and of its performance of the Lockbox Services has been made under our respective supervision.

To the best of our respective knowledge, based on such review, the Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Lockbox Services, respectively, in all
material respects throughout the Reporting Period.



|                                                      |  |                    
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|SunTrust Bank Solely with respect
to Lockbox Services
|                                                      | 
|By:                                                   |  | /s/ Timothy Janyska
|Timothy Janyska                                      
|Group Vice President                                 
|Dated: February 26, 2016
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Davidson Diversified Real Estate III, L.P. (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: November 13, 2007
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: November 13, 2007





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [LLNM920000 L13100000 FI0000; OKNM 121969]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease.

# SUMMARY:

Under the Class II provisions of Title IV of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease OKNM 121969 from the lessee(s), Brower Oil & Gas, Inc., for lands in Garvin County, Oklahoma. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margie Dupre, Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-0115 or at (505) 954-2142.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    No valid lease has been issued that affects the lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre or a fraction thereof, per year, and 16                     2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessee paid the required $500 administrative fee for the reinstatement of the lease and the $166 cost for publishing this Notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    . The lessee met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We are proposing to reinstate lease OKNM 121969, effective the date of termination, May 1, 2010, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.                

Margie Dupre,

Land Law Examiner, Fluids Adjudication Team.

[FR Doc. 2010-22963 Filed 9-14-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
EX-33.2
(logo) MIDLAND    (logo) PNC
       LOAN              REAL ESTATE
       SERVICES


Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria

Midland Loan Services ("Midland"), a division of PNC Bank, National
Association, is responsible for assessing compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of Regulation AB of the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("Regulation AB") relating to its role in
the servicing of commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions.

Midland has assessed its compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as
of and for the year ended December 31, 2011. In making this assessment, Midland
used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB. This report, covers the commercial
mortgage-backed securities transactions (the "Platform").

Based on such assessment. Midland believes that, as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2011, Midland has complied in all material respects with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB relating to its
role in the servicing of commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions,
except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B),
1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii),
1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which Midland has determined as being
inapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the commercial
mortgage-backed securities transactions being serviced (the "applicable
servicing criteria").

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm,
has issued an attestation report on Midland's assessment of compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011.

MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES
a division of PNC Bank, National Association

/s/ Steven W. Smith          /s/ Robert D. Gahagan     /s/ Bradley J. Hauger
Steven W. Smith              Robert D. Gahagan         Bradley J. Hauger
Executive Vice President     Vice President            Senior Vice President

Date: February 24, 2012


Member of The PNC Financial Services Group
10851 Mastin Boulevard Overland Park, Kansas 66210
800-327-8083
www.pnc.com/midland
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LARRY HOWARD.

February 28, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 436 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 436

  Expressing support for designation of October as ``National Protect 
                         Your Hearing Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 2008

   Mr. Ross submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing support for designation of October as ``National Protect 
                         Your Hearing Month''.

Whereas the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders 
        (NIDCD) estimates that approximately 17 percent (36,000,000) of adults 
        in the United States report some degree of hearing loss;
Whereas the NIDCD estimates that approximately 15 percent (26,000,000) of people 
        in the United States between the ages of 20 and 69 have high frequency 
        hearing loss due to exposure to loud sounds or noise at work or in 
        leisure activities;
Whereas young people and their families take part in activities every day that 
        can contribute to increased exposure to harmful noise levels;
Whereas potential sources include personal stereo systems and portable movie and 
        game systems, sports recreation activities, such as hunting and 
        snowmobiling, athletic events, concerts, yard work, such as mowing the 
        lawn, and hobbies, such as woodworking;
Whereas over time, continued exposure to harmful noise levels can lead to 
        permanent noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL);
Whereas noise-induced hearing loss can be prevented through simple measures to 
        reduce exposure to loud sounds including turning down the volume, 
        limiting the amount of time spent engaged in a loud activity, moving 
        away from the source of sound, or wearing hearing protection when 
        involved in a loud activity;
Whereas Congress is an institution that can help raise awareness in the general 
        public about the importance of protecting one's hearing; and
Whereas the month of October would be an appropriate month to designate as 
        ``National Protect Your Hearing Month'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) supports the designation of ``National Protect Your 
        Hearing Month''; and
            (2) recognizes that all people in the United States should 
        become more aware of the potential for noise-induced hearing 
        loss in their daily activities and of the measures they can 
        take to protect their hearing for a lifetime.
                                 <all>
```
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: NATO Exercise Toxic Trip 23, Energy Action Month, Clean Geothermal EnergyPublished Oct. 20, 2023
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Eric Mann
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                In this week’s look around the Air Force, exercise Toxic Trip 23 brings together allies and partners in a recover the air base chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear exercise, Energy Action Month advances new technology for the joint fight and geothermal energy prototype facilities deliver continuous, clean energy to harness the Earth’s natural heat and power installations. (Hosted by Staff Sgt. Milton Hamilton)

01:59


**Watch on DVIDS | Watch on YouTube** For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.Featured Video 



AF 



Air Force 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



AFTV 



CSAF 



SecAF 



modernization 



AFMC 



AMC 



Energy Action Month 



climate action plan 



CAP 



Geothermal 



AFIMSC 



AFCEC 



Energy Installations and Environment 



Office of Energy Assurance 



strategic competition 



NATO 



cbrn 



Allies and Partners 



innovation Related Links
        Recover the air base: 18 NATO countries participate in multinational CBRN exercise
            
            Energy Action Month highlights the critical role energy plays in strategic competition
            
            Air Force pioneering innovative geothermal energy solutions
_________________

_________________ 1 Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2014)

Statement of T HOMAS , J. 

## SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 14A493

MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, ET AL ., v. ANGEL LOPEZ-VALENZUELA, ET AL

. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[November 13, 2014] The application for stay presented to J USTICE K ENNEDY and by him referred to the Court is denied. The order heretofore entered by J USTICE K ENNEDY is vacated. Statement of J USTICE T HOMAS , with whom J USTICE S CALIA joins, respecting the denial of the application for a stay. Petitioner asks us to stay a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding unconstitutional an amendment to the Arizona Constitu

tion that the State’s citizens approved overwhelmingly in a referendum eight years ago. I join my colleagues in denying this application only because there appears to be no “reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari.” Hollingsworth v. Perry , 558 U. S. 183, 190 (2010) ( per curiam ). That is unfortunate. We have recognized a strong presumption in favor of granting writs of certiorari to review decisions of lower courts holding federal statutes unconstitutional. See United States v. Bajakajian , 524 U. S. 321, 327 (1998); United States v. Gainey , 380 U. S. 63, 65 (1965). States deserve no less consideration. See Janklow v. Planned Parenthood, Sioux Falls Clinic , 517 U. S. 1174, 1177 (1996) (S CALIA , J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (“This decision is questionable enough that we should, since the invalidation of state law is at issue, accord re

-2 MARICOPA COUNTY v. LOPEZ-VALENZUELA

Statement of T HOMAS , J. view”). Indeed, we often review decisions striking down state laws, even in the absence of a disagreement among lower courts. See, e.g. , Hollingsworth v. Perry , 570 U. S. ___ (2013); Cook v. Gralike , 531 U. S. 510 (2001); Saenz v. Roe , 526 U. S. 489 (1999); Renne v. Geary , 501 U. S. 312 (1991); Massachusetts v. Oakes , 491 U. S. 576 (1989). But for reasons that escape me, we have not done so with any consistency, especially in recent months. See, e.g., Herbert

v. Kitchen
, ante, p. ___; Smith v. Bishop
, ante, p. ___; Rainey v. Bostic
, ante, p. ___; Walker v. Wolf
, ante, p. ___; see also Otter v. Latta
, ante, p. ___ (denying a stay); Par

nell v. Hamby
, ante, p. ___ (same). At the very least, we owe the people of Arizona the respect of our review before we let stand a decision facially invalidating a state consti

tutional amendment. Of course, the Court has yet to act on a petition for a writ of certiorari in this matter, and I hope my prediction about whether that petition w ill be granted proves wrong. Our recent practice, however, gives me little reason to be optimistic.