alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Airmen back up AF units with emergency materiel reservesPublished April 28, 2016
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Mariette Adams
                        
                        
                        6th Air Mobility Wing Public Affairs
                **MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) --**
                As the traffic management Airman loads two crates into the container, his eyes are locked onto the spacing. With little room for error, he remains focused. He slowly maneuvers the crates into place with a forklift and guides them perfectly into position."It takes precision in order to load the crates correctly because we only have a 2- to-3-inch clearance between the containers and crates," said Senior Airman Fabian Delgado, a traffic management journeyman with the 6th Logistics Readiness Squadron.Since the 49th Materiel Maintenance Support Squadron's Operating Location Alpha moved from MacDill Air Force Base to Holloman AFB, New Mexico, in 2015, traffic management Airmen have been loading excess materiel for bases in need.Within the past few months, the 6th LRS has moved over 50 of the maintenance support squadron’s war reserve materiel crates from MacDill AFB to locations throughout the world."The purpose of the war reserve materiel program is to strategically place materiel like equipment, vehicles, consumables, munitions, and medical resources that are required to support various operational plans and contingencies around the globe," said Tech. Sgt. Melinda Thomas, the NCO in charge of outbound cargo with the 6th LRS.From ordering containers and scheduling drop-offs to loading the containers and sending them across the world, the process to get materiel where it needs to go is a team effort."It took the whole team in order to get the crates out in a timely fashion,” said Airman 1st Class Wyatt Simmons, a traffic management apprentice with the 6th LRS. "Our team showed excellence in all we do as we were able to effectively accomplish the mission."With the trial and error of moving crates around the container, the innovative Airmen were able to maximize the use of the containers and get material to its final destination."There are certain bases within multiple areas of responsibility that have war reserve materiel programs," Thomas said. "Storing these assets at those locations cuts transportation time and costs when the items are requested. In moving these assets, we are helping to maintain a postured force."Through the work of MacDill Airmen, bases around the world continue to be mission ready, and the Air Force maintains the ability to respond anywhere within hours, not days.materiel 



MacDill AFB 



Holloman AFB 



contingency 



logistics
583 A.2d 334

#### JULES LIPPE AND CORRINE LIPPE v. THE TOWNSHIP OF SCOTCH PLAINS.

March 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT FERRARO.

February 28, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
# CERTIFICATION

 

Re:          **Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2011-C3, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2011-C3**(the “Transaction”), issued pursuant tothe Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2011 (the “Poolingand Servicing Agreement”), executed in connection with the Transaction(capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth inthe Pooling and Servicing Agreement).

                                               __________________________________________

 

I,Jane Lam, certify that:

 

               1.             Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required tobe filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of MorganStanley Capital I Trust 2011-C3 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

               2.            Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 

 

               3.            Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

 

               4.            Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their obligationsunder the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.            All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any materialinstances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed inthis report on Form 10-K.  

 

Ingiving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on informationprovided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

·         U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee

·         Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator

·         Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian

·         Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as MasterServicer

·         Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation, as Special Servicer

·         Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as OperatingAdvisor

·         CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., asServicing Function Participant

·         National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing FunctionParticipant

 

 

Date: March 26, 2020

 

 

By/s/ Jane Lam

Name:Jane Lam

Title:Director and President
#### Jas. F. McKee et al. v. Buena Le Gette et al.

(No. 1980, Op. Book No. 2, p. 417.)

Appeal from Guadalupe County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1144. *Evidence in suit against officer for wrongful seizure of property under process; officer's return; mitigation of damages.*Appellee Buena Le Gette, wife of L. B. Le Gette, claimed to own in her separate right a certain stock of cattle. Appellant McKee, constable, by virtue of an execution in favor of Nolte & Fennell, and against L. B. Le Gette, levied upon, as stated in his return on the execution, *about*fifty head of cattle, as the property of said L. B. Le Gette, and sold fifteen head of *647the same under the execution for $122. The suit was for the value of the cattle levied on, alleged to be the sum of $650, and for this amount appellees recovered judgment. Upon the trial McKee, the constable, while upon the stand as a witness, was asked the following questions, viz.: 1st. What cattle wTere levied on by you ? 2d. What has become of the cattle levied on by you ? 3d. Where are the cattle now that you levied on ? 4th. Who now has said cattle in possession ? The court, upon objections made by appellees, would not permit the witness to answer these questions, which rulings of the court were excepted to by appellants. *Held,*the suit was for trespass. The answer in the main justified the seizure on the ground that the cattle were the community property of L. B. Le Gette and wife, and therefore subject to seizure and sale under the execution. There was no general denial, but the defendant asserted in his answer that the plaintiffs were in no way damaged by the seizure. Excepting the fifteen head sold by the constable, there is no evidence in the record showing what disposition was made of the cattle. It may be that the cattle were never removed from their accustomed range, or if they were, they may have been returned to appellees. If such were the facts, it would certainly mitigate the damages which .appellees might be entitled to recover. The testimony sought to be elicited by the questions propounded to the witness McKee was admissible. It could not be said to ■be obnoxious to the rule that an officer will not be permitted to contradict his return, even if that rule should be applicable. The return does not state the exact number of the cattle levied on, nor the kind or value of the •cattle, nor the disposition made of any except the fifteen head sold.

May 19, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

§1145. *Return of officer only prima facie evidence.*Where the return is introduced in evidence by one not *648deriving any right or interest under it, as, for instance, when one sues for wrongful levy, it is a mere admission, and only *prima facie*evidence against the officer. [Abbott’s Trial Ev. p. 200; 23 Wend. 291; 10 Pick. 166.] In this case the appellees are claiming not under the officer’s return, but that the levy was wrongful.

§ 1146. *Pleading; general denial.*The allegation in defendant’s answer, “He further denies that any damage was done said plaintiffs, or either of them, by said levy,” in effect had the same operation as a general denial.

Rehearing refused.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    SCHOOL OF THE FUTURE IS HERE NOW

                                 ______

                            HON. ROB PORTMAN

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 8, 1995

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I had the pleasure of touring 
a school in my district which is setting the trend for the future of 
education. Mason Middle School, in Warren County in southwest Ohio, 
uses a state-of-the-art technology-driven curriculum so that students 
can easily enter the high-tech workplace and adapt to a changing world.
  If our world is transitioning to an information-based society, these 
students will be way ahead of the curve. As our current methods of 
production become obsolete, more and more work will have to do with 
information processing. Because of Mason Middle School's emphasis on 
information and technology, its students are being given the skills to 
compete in the work force of the future and the confidence to succeed 
there. Students also learn to appreciate the interconnectedness of the 
world, preparing them to interact in a global economy.
  When we create schools such as this, we are doing more than providing 
for our children's success in an age of ever-expanding technology. We 
are laying the groundwork for a new political system. Our system is 
based on democracy, or the will of the people. To express the will of 
the people, we rely on representation. Computers will make our system 
of representation more responsive. What began with polling by mail and 
then phone has evolved into direct communication and decisionmaking. 
Instead of relying on our Senators or Congressmen and women to 
represent us, in the future, we can begin to represent ourselves. A 
democratic system can only be effective with an informed and engaged 
electorate. Technology will bring us even closer together--creating a 
more participatory democracy.
  Using today's far more advanced computers, satellites, telephones, 
cable, polling techniques, and other tools, not to mention the Internet 
and other communication networks, an educated citizenry can, for the 
first time in history, begin making many of its own political 
decisions. I'd say that's pretty exciting stuff. And I would also say 
that I am very proud that a school in the Second Congressional District 
is leading the way.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 95 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 95

Providing for the disapproval of the Congress of the proposed agreement 
 for cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation 
               pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2008

    Mr. Berman (for himself and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) (both by request) 
 introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the disapproval of the Congress of the proposed agreement 
 for cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation 
               pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress does not 
favor the proposed agreement for cooperation transmitted to the 
Congress by the President on May 13, 2008.
                                 <all>
```
#### Pierrepont & Tuttle v. H. Sassee et al.

(No. 1273, Op. Book No. 2, p. 748.)

Appeal from Coryelle Oounty.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1294. *Receipt is only prima facie evidence, etc.*A receipt for money is only *prima facie*evidence of payment. It is not conclusive. It may be explained or contradicted by parol. So it is held that a discharge on an execution is only a receipt and may be explained by parol evidence. [3 Foster, 555.]

§ 1295. *Attorney at law; discharge of debt by.*An attorney at law has no right to discharge the debt of his client without receiving full satisfaction, and the client is not bound by such act, but would be entitled to recover all of the debt that had not actually been paid to the attorney. But if the attorney has authority to collect the debt, and does collect a portion of it, his client is bound by his act to the extent of such collection. [McAlpin v. Cassidy, 17 Tex. 462; Wright v. Daily, 26 Tex 730.]

§ 1296. *Payment to an attorney.*A party who pays a debt to an attorney, who is authorized to collect it, is under no obligation to see that the attorney appropriates it properly, although he may have had reason to suspect that the attorney would misappropriate it. Such party is under no obligation to assume the protection of the attorney’s client, so long as he is himself no party to the misconduct of the attorney, and has no interest in it, and no profit thereby.

§ 1297. *Exclusion of evidence; not reversible error, tuhen.*The exclusion of admissible evidence will not be error for which the judgment will be reversed, where it appears that the excluded evidence was supplied on the trial by other evidence, to such an extent that no injury has resulted to the party offering it, and that the verdict could not have properly been otherwise, had the excluded evidence been admitted. [Sears v. Sears, 45 Tex. 557.]

§ 1298. *Injunction; damages for delay.*The assessment of the ten per cent, damages for delay, allowed by the *753statute [Pas. Dig. 3935; R. S. 2894], is within the discretion of the judge, and that discretion, unless there appears to have been manifest error, will not be revised. [Ross v. Lister, 14 Tex. 469; Fall v. Ratliff, 10 Tex. 291.]

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
     I, Steven G. Murdock, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Meade InstrumentsCorp.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting
Date: May 28, 2004   By: /s/ **Steven G. Murdock,** **President, CEO and Secretary**
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 50385 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSHUA JERMAINE LOVETT , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:03

- CR

- 59

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joshua Jermaine Lovett appeals the s entence imposed following the revocation of his prior term s of supervised release . He contends that the above

guidelines sentence is plainly unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically, Lovett argues that the sentence exceeded the punishment required to reflect the seriousness of his breach of trust and failed to account

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 18, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-50385 Document: 00512938761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2015No. 14

- 50385
for his substance abuse problems, the support of his family, his vow not to get in trouble again, and the serious charges he faced in state court. Because he did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence after it was imposed , our

r eview is limited to plain error

. See United States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256,
259

- 60 (5th Cir. 2009). The record reflects that the district court considered the recommended imprisonment range of 6 to 12 months, the 24 and 60

- month statutory maximum term s of imprisonment , the nature and circumstances of Lovett’s supervised release violations, Lovett’s substance abuse problems , t he probation officer’s prior efforts to help Lovett during the supervised release
term , Lovett’s pending state charges, and Lovett’s request that he not be sentenced to an additional term of supervised release. The district court ultimately concluded that concurrent terms of 24 months of imprisonment on Counts One and Three and an additional 36

- month term of supervised release on Count Three was a p propriate based on the circumstances of the case and the § 3553(a) factors. We have routinely upheld revocation sentences exceeding the recommended range, even where the sentence is the statutory maximum. United States v. Warren , 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th C ir. 2013). Although sentences should be based on individualized assessments of the facts in each case, Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007), there is nothing in the record to indicate that Lovett’s case presents an e xception to this general rule. Because Lovett has failed to show that his revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable or plainly erroneous , see id. at 3 26, 332

- 33 , the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 14-50385 Document: 00512938761 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2015
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In the Matter of D.B.

No. 06

- 14

- 00053

- CV Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 4

- JV

12 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley,

Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal.

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JANUARY 28, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk