alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Air Force awards E-7A prototype contractPublished Feb. 28, 2023
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --**
                The Department of the Air Force awarded The Boeing Company a contract to begin work on the E-7A weapon system Feb 28. The value of this initial contract will not exceed $1.2 billion. 
 
The DAF **selected the E-7A** to replace the **E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System**. The E-7A will provide advanced Airborne Moving Target Indication and Battle Management, Command and Control capabilities, and advanced Multi-Role Electronically Scanned Array radar that enhances airborne battle management and enables long-range kill chains with potential peer adversaries. 
 
In fiscal year 2022, the DAF selected the E-7A to replace the E-3 AWACS and established an E-7A Program Management Office. The DAF is using the rapid prototyping acquisition pathway to acquire the first two E-7As. 
 
"The E-7A will be the department's principal airborne sensor for detecting, identifying, tracking, and reporting all airborne activity to Joint Force commanders," said **Andrew Hunter**, assistant secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. "This contract award is a critical step in ensuring that the department continues delivering battlespace awareness and management capabilities to U.S. warfighters, allies and partners for the next several decades. The E-7A will enable greater airborne battlespace awareness through its precise, real-time air picture and will be able to control and direct individual aircraft under a wide range of environmental and operational conditions." 
 
The USAF plans to begin production in fiscal 2025, with the first E-7A expected to be fielded by fiscal 2027. The service anticipates procuring 24 additional E-7As by fiscal 2032. The E-7A total aircraft inventory is projected to be 26. 
 
The ongoing modernization of the E-3 AWACS meets the intent of the **2022 National Defense Strategy** by continuing worldwide Battle Management, Command and Control and Airborne Moving Target Indication Operations as required by the DAF. 
 
"We conducted a thorough analysis of viable industry options to ensure the selected E-3 replacement could meet the specific needs of the U.S. Until the E-7A is fielded, we will continue to rely on the E-3 AWACS," Hunter said. "The rapid prototyping program will integrate U.S.-based mission systems into the existing airborne platform to meet DAF requirements while simultaneously ensuring interoperability with coalition and allied partners already operating the E-7A."LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Aircraft 



readiness 



E-7A 



tactical battle management 



Command and Control 



moving target indication platform 



E-3 Sentry 



The Boeing Company 



airborne battle management 



airpower 



contract 



future fight 



rapid prototyping acquisition pathway 



2022 NDS
583 A.2d 305

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT VALTZ.

January 17, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
583 A.2d 333

#### ATLANTIC CITY CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCE, INC. v. CLARE LEE LEVY AND ESTHER SCHULTZ POTLER.

March 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
No. 11,574.

#### Alexander *v.*The Board of Commissioners of Monroe County.

Filed Jan. 29, 1885;

petition for a rehearing overruled April 2, 1885.

From the Monroe Circuit Court.

*J. W. Buskirk*and *H. C. Duncan,*for appellant.

*J.*H. *Louden, R. W. Miers, A. G. Cavins, E. H. C. Cavins, W. L. Cavins*and *H. H. Friedley,*for appellee.

Franklin, C.

Without stating anything about the issues and rulings of the court in this case, it is sufficient to say that the precise question presented in this case was decided adversely to appellant in the case of *Bynum*v. *Board, etc.,*100 Ind. 90. Upon the authority of that case, the judgment in this case must be affirmed.

Pee Cueiam. — It is therefore ordered that the judgment be and it is affirmed with costs.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1171]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  CONGRATULATIONS TO THE LADIES' VILLAGE IMPROVEMENT SOCIETY OF EAST 
                      HAMPTON ON THEIR CENTENNIAL

                                 ______

                         HON. MICHAEL P. FORBES

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 7, 1995
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Ladies 
Village Improvement Society of East Hampton [LVIS] on their hundred-
year anniversary. The LVIS was founded by 21 women on November 30, 1895 
with the slogan, ``Keep East Hampton Beautiful.'' Since then, these 
women have kept their promise. Through the years, the LVIS has planted 
grass plots and trees, tended the village greens, exterminated harmful 
insects, lead clean up campaigns, and even started a college 
scholarship fund for high school students which totaled $23,000 in 
1993.
  I believe that volunteer work is an asset to any community. The women 
of the LVIS of East Hampton exemplify this spirit of altruism. Their 
service is a valuable contribution to improving the lives of everyone 
in the village of East Hampton.
  Today, membership of LVIS has expanded to include many women who have 
professional careers, as well as part-time residents of East Hampton 
Village. These women are, and continue to be valuable members of their 
community. Congratulations on 100 years of dedication to making East 
Hampton beautiful.

                          ____________________
```
Notice: This opin ion is subject to form al revision before publication in the Atl antic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal

errors so that correc tions m ay be made before the boun d volum es go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF AP P EALS

No. 1 5- BG- 10 94

IN RE: J OEL D. JOSEPH,

Res po nd en t.
Ba r Reg is tra tio n No. 1 83 83 0 BDN: 2 61 -1 5

BEFORE: Fi sh er, Ass oc ia te Ju dg e, an d Neb ek er an d R ei d, Se ni or Ju dg es

.

ORDER (FILED - December 1 7, 2 01 5)

On co ns id erat io n of th e cert ifi ed op in io n of th e Co ur t of App eal s of Mar y la nd
di sb arri ng res po nd en t fro m th e pr act ic e of la w in th at juri sd ic ti on , se e Att or ne y Gri eva nc e Co mm’n of Mar yl an d v. Jo se

ph

, 31 A.3d 13 7 (Md

. 20 11 ), th is co u rt’s
Octo be r 8, 20 15

, or de r di rect in g res po nd en t to sh ow cau se why reci pr oc al di sc ip li ne sh ou ld no t be im

po se d, th e res po ns e of re s p o n d e nt

, th e st at em en t of Bar Co un se l

reg ard in g reci pr oc al di sc ip li ne , th e lo dg ed rep ly of res po nd en t, an d it ap pe ari ng th at

res po nd en t fi le d h is D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affi da vi t o n Oct ob er 2 9, 2 01 5, i t i s

ORDERED th at th e Cl erk sh al l fi le th e lo dg ed rep ly of res po nd en t. It is

FURTHER ORDERED th at Jo el D. J os ep h is he reb y di sb arre d fro m th e
pr act ic e of la w in th is juri sd ic ti on , nu nc pr o tu nc to Octo be r 29

, 20 15

. To th e ex te nt

res po nd en t ch al le ng es im po si ti on of reci pr oc al di sc ip li ne by at te m pt in g to re-l it ig at e th e di sc ip li ne im

po se d b y th e st at e of Mar y la nd

, su ch a ch al le ng e is im pr op er in
reci pr oc al di sc ip li na ry pr oc eed in gs , se e In re Zd ra vko vi ch

, 83 1 A.2d 96 4, 96 9 (D.C.
20 03 ) (“ Pu t si m

pl y , reci pr oc al di sc ip li ne pr oc eed in gs are no t a fo ru m to rear gu e th e fo rei gn di sc ip li ne .”). Fu rth er, t o t he ex te nt th at res po nd en t ar gu es th at th ere was a de fic ie nc y of ev id e n ce to su pp or t th e or ig in at in g juri sd ic ti on ’s fin di ng s th at he

en g a ge d in m is rep res en ta ti on s as to hi s res id en ce whe n he fil ed a m ot io n to ap pe ar

pr o ha c vi ce , he was pe rm it te d to su bm it ev id en ce a n d a r g um en t in th e or ig in at in g juri sd ic ti on on why he sh ou ld no t b e d is ba rred

.

PER CURIAM
News United States Air Force
 Another Airman recovered, one remains missingPublished Oct. 7, 2014
                        
                        
                        18th Wing Public Affairs
                **KADENA AIR BASE, Japan (AFNS) --**
                A combined U.S. Air Force and Japanese search team recovered one of the two Airmen still missing after being swept out to sea from the northwest coast of Okinawa Oct. 5. 
U.S. Air Force personnel discovered the Airman close to the shore, about 1.5 miles south of the presumed incident location. 
The body of Senior Master Sgt. James Swartz was recovered Oct. 5, by the Japanese Coast Guard, Robins Air Force Base officials announced. Swartz was the aerospace propulsion superintendent with the Georgia Air National Guard’s 116th Air Control Wing at Robins AFB, Georgia.
The missing were Master Sgt. Daniel Paschal, an aerospace propulsion craftsman with the 116th ACW, and Staff Sgt. Joshua Schoenhoff, an instrument and flight control systems specialist with the 461st Air Control Wing at Robins AFB.
The name of the Airman recovered Oct. 7, is pending until next-of-kin notification.
"Our hearts go out to the 116th and 461st members and their families during this time of loss and unknown outcomes," said Col. Kevin Clotfelter, the 116th ACW commander. "Please keep your thoughts and prayers of support directed toward all those affected."
The three Airmen were TDY at Kadena Air Base, Japan, and were visiting the northwest coast of the island when the incident occurred.
"We share in the sorrow felt by these Airmen's loved ones," said Col. Henry Cyr, the 461st ACW commander. "We will do all that we can to work through this tragedy together."
HH-60G Pave Hawks from Kadena AB and the Japanese Coast Guard searched for more than 24 hours from Oct. 5 to Oct. 6, for the missing Airmen. Rough seas with 10-15 foot waves complicated rescue efforts, causing a suspension of operations between sunset Oct. 6 and sunrise Oct. 7.
"Team Kadena's thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of the Airmen involved in this tragic incident," said Col. Thomas Torkelson, the 18th Wing vice commander. "This event touches every member of the Air Force family."
Air- and sea-based search operations for the final missing Airman ended for the evening at sunset, and are planned to begin at sunrise Oct. 8. Shore-based searches will continue late into the evening Oct. 7, to capitalize on calmer seas and low tide.Japan 



Kadena AB 



missing Airman 



PACAF 



Robins AFB 



Okinawa Related Links
        1 Airman dead, 2 remain missing at sea
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23707]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1935-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]


Illinois; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Illinois (FEMA-1935-DR), dated August 19, 2010, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 13, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Illinois is hereby amended to include the Public 
Assistance program for the following areas among those areas determined 
to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster 
by the President in his declaration of August 19, 2010.

Adams, Carroll, Jo Daviess, Ogle, Pike, Schuyler, and Stephenson 
Counties for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-23707 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3606

___________ Jeffrey White; Imogene White; Ray * White, *

Plaintiffs - * Appellants, *
v. * Lyle Minnick, individually and in * his capacity as the Sheriff of * Ringgold County, Iowa; Arlen * Hughes, individually and in his * capacity as the County Attorney * Appeal from the United States of Ringgold County, Iowa; Highway * District Court for the Patrol, State of Missouri; * Southern District of Iowa. Ringgold County, Iowa; * Unknown/Unnamed Defendants, sued * as “John Doe”, an unknown * [UNPUBLISHED] Missouri Highway Patrol Officer; * Lawrence Waldauer, individually * and in his capacity as Worth * County, Missouri Sheriff; Worth * County Missouri Sheriff’s Department; Lorace Waldeier,

Defendants - Appellees. *

*

*

___________ Submitted: September 11, 1997 Filed: December 12, 1997

___________

## The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern 1 

## District of Iowa. -2- Before HANSEN, ROSS, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jeffrey, Imogene, and Ray White brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actio n against the above-named defendants. In addition to federal civil rights viol ations, the Whites alleged various violations of state law. Th e district court dismissed the action against the Missouri defendants and 1 latergranted summary judgment for the remaining defendants. The Whites contest both the dismissal and the grant of summary judgment. Havingcarefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial cour t committed no error, and we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47(B). A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

  EX-33.3
(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
```
583 A.2d 300

#### CITY OF CAMDEN, ETC. v. BLOCK 214, LOT 21, ETC.

January 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000             FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000             FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                           2,180                   1,283
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,312                  13,107
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,861                   2,243
<INVENTORY>                                     34,311                  14,191
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,038                  30,522
<PP&E>                                          10,881                   5,899
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,915                   2,071
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,091                  34,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,485                   9,134
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            81                      79
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,584                  25,188
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,091                  34,624
<SALES>                                        126,808                  76,321
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               126,808                  76,321
<CGS>                                           75,780                  44,255
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,780                  44,255
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,228                  21,771
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 977                     473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,003                   9,822
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,048                   4,223
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,955                   5,599
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,955                   5,599
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.69                    0.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.60                    0.80


</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 ‘Q4Z’ aims to eliminate on-duty fatalities and injuriesPublished Oct. 17, 2016
                        
                        By Darlene Y. Cowsert
                        
                        
                        Air Force Safety Center Public Affairs
                **KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFNS) --**
                The new fiscal year brings a renewed emphasis from Air Force occupational safety professionals to the Quest for Zero initiative which sets a goal of zero on-duty injuries and fatalities. “I’m often asked why we promote Quest for Zero,” said Bill Parsons, the Air Force chief of occupational safety. “The answer is two-fold. One, it’s a method of protecting resources – both equipment and personnel; and two, protecting these resources is critical to combat readiness.”According to Air Force Safety Automated System data, there were 29,713 on-duty mishaps reported during fiscal years 2011-2015. Those mishaps resulted in 28,651 injuries at a cost of $242 million. The five-year total includes 24 Class A mishaps, the most costly of all mishap categories. Of those, 17 resulted in fatality, three resulted in total disability, and four involved property damage. “The elimination of on-duty fatalities and a focused effort to reduce all mishaps is an attainable goal, but it requires every one doing our job,” said Maj. Gen. Andrew Mueller, the Air Force chief of safety. “Safety is a shared responsibility – from providing the guidance, training, requirements and oversight, to each of us making a personal choice every day to take responsibility for our own safety.”Unlike previous safety awareness initiatives, Q4Z is a year-round effort to reduce on-duty mishaps through methods that include risk management, hazard abatement, communication and continuous training. “The start of the fiscal year is the right time to restate our goal of zero on-duty injuries and fatalities,” Parsons said. “If every Airman embraces Q4Z, we’ll not only save lives and money, but we’ll also ensure mission success.” The fiscal 2017 Q4Z theme, “Why wait,” brings attention to every Airman’s responsibility to report or communicate information about observed hazards that pose a potential mishap and to ensure that every required safety measure is used. Contact your local safety office for more information.safety 



QZ4 



AFSC
578 A.2d 876

#### IN THE MATTER OF JILL L. TERRY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 4, 1990.

ORDER

JILL H. TERRY of EAST BRUNSWICK having been Ordered to show cause why she should not be temporarily suspended from the practice of law or otherwise disciplined, the Order returnable before this Court on Monday, September 10, 1990, at 12:00 noon in the Supreme Court courtroom, Hughes Justice Complex, Trenton;

And respondent having been directed to submit to a proctor-ship pending the Court’s disposition of the application of the Office of Attorney Ethics;

And the Office of Attorney Ethics having reported to the Court that respondent has failed to communicate with that office in respect of the proctorship, and good cause appearing;

IT IS ORDERED that JILL H. TERRY is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of her suspension and that she shall comply with the Regulation Governing Suspended Attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that the continuation of this Order shall be considered as a part of the Order to Show Cause returnable September 10, 1990.