alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Vice chief visits Academy, discusses commitment, successPublished Feb. 9, 2016
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Veronica Ward
                        
                        
                        U.S. Air Force Academy Public Affairs
                **U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. (AFNS) --**
                Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein visited the U.S. Air Force Academy Jan. 27 to meet Airmen and cadets, discuss the value of commitment to a higher cause, and how the Air Force will continue to excel.In two large group sessions, Goldfein, a 1983 Academy graduate, told his audiences of total force Airmen that their special skillsets will always be in high demand."We have ways of thinking about our future enterprise as a force that have yet to be conceptualized," he said. "Our Air Force is too small, too old and slightly out of balance for what the nation needs, but there is also a trifecta of opportunity to lead combined operations and joint warfare for the next decade. We have far more opportunities than challenges."This trifecta includes the defense secretary defining China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and violent extremism as the nation’s operational challenges. It also includes the Air Force Strategic Master Plan and Air Force Future Operating Concept."Our future operating concept is perfectly aligned with the Department of Defense Third Offset Strategy and central to what the Air Force provides our nation," Goldfein said.The general also emphasized the role Airmen and cadets have in keeping the Air Force great. He said the most significant lesson he learned as a young man was the importance of commitment to a greater purpose.During his early cadet days, an air officer commander gave Goldfein a chance to alter his path, a test program that allowed some cadets to leave the Academy with the option of returning the following year.After leaving the Academy, the general spent a year without direction, biking his way across the U.S. He said the kindness he was shown by strangers during his trek made him understand how special his country is and what an honor it is to protect it. Renewed, he returned to the Academy."I learned what it means to commit to something and I rediscovered the Academy," he said. "A place I once viewed as a challenge became an environment full of opportunities."Cadet 1st Class Kristov George, the Cadet Wing commander, said the 4,000-member wing was encouraged by Goldfein's story."His words are inspiring to any cadet who finds themselves in the 'middle of the pack,"' he said. "It's pretty motivational to receive a firsthand account from someone who took the Academy for granted initially, then eventually turned it around for the better. Gen. Goldfein has proved that as long as you have the will and work ethic, there's always a way to achieve your goals."VCSAF 



Academy 



U.S. Air Force Academy 



leadership 



cadet Related Links
        DAVID L. GOLDFEIN
                                Oct. 6, 2015
                                21st Chief of Staff of the Air Force
#### Texas Express Company v. C. L. Beissner et al.

(No. 536, Op. Book No. 2, p. 270.)

Error from Galveston County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 762. *Statute books of other states admissible in evidence.*Our statute expressly provides that ‘ *‘*the printed statute books of the several states and territories of the United States, purporting to have been printed under the *419authority of such states and territories, shall be evidence in the courts of this state.” [Pas. Dig. 3712, 6829; Ellis v. Wiley, 17 Tex. 134; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 488; R. S. 2250.] The court erred in rejecting the printed statute book offei’ed in evidence by appellant, the same appearing to have been properly authenticated by the authority of the state of which it purported to be the laws.

March 17, 1880.

Reversed and remanded.
#### WILLIAM H. HONAN ET AL. *v.*JOSEPH DIMYAN ET AL.

(AC 22587)

Foti, Bishop and Hennessy, Js.

Argued April 28

officially released May 20, 2003

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Manuel Vienbenitos SANTIAGO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-1002.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 12, 2001.

*64Irma B. Ascher, Esq., New York, NY, for appellant.

Robert C. Juman; James J. Benjamin, Jr., on the brief, Assistant United States Attorneys, Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for appellees.

Present MESKILL, LEVAL, and CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Manuel Vienbenitos Santiago appeals from the sentence imposed on him on his plea of guilty to a drug conspiracy and assault on a federal agent. He argues that the district court erred by not granting him a two-level reduction as a “minor participant” under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Given the nature of Santiago’s extended participation, his agreement to supply 550 grams of crack cocaine at a price of $11,000, his soliciting a supplier, his recruitment of a courier, and his giving of instructions concerning the exchange of drugs for money, the district court was well justified in rejecting Santiago’s claim of entitlement to the minor-participant reduction.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
News United States Air Force
 Air Force funds small business participation in research and development programsPublished Aug. 20, 2014
                **WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force is searching for innovative, technology-based small businesses to compete for Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer, or SBIR and STTR, research and development contracts.
"We're trying to foster innovative technology solutions for the warfighter and the U.S. Air Force SBIR and STTR programs ( by providing) more than $300 million in funding for research and development activities by small businesses annually," said David Sikora, the Air Force SBIR/STTR program manager. "With this budget, the Air Force funds research from the early stages of concept development until it transitions to military or commercial use."
During a September roadshow, Sikora will visit several western U.S. cities, meeting with small business owners and community leaders to discuss funding for high-risk projects that meet Air Force needs, intellectual property rights for the small business and Air Force assistance with transitioning or commercializing SBIR and STTR funded technology. The roadshow will take place September 22-26, visiting locations in Bozeman, Montana; Idaho Falls and Boise, Idaho; and Salt Lake City.
The Air Force SBIR and STTR programs are mission-oriented programs that integrate the needs and requirements of the Air Force through research and development topics that have military and commercial potential. The SBIR program was established by Congress in 1982 to fund research and development, or R&D, through small businesses of 500 or fewer employees. The STTR program was established in 1992 to fund cooperative R&D projects with small businesses and nonprofit U.S. research institutions, such as universities.
For more information about the roadshow and the programs, including commercialization readiness assistance for existing contracts visit the program website at www.afsbirsttr.com.*(Information courtesy of an 88th Air Base Wing Public Affairs news release)*technology 



business 



small business 



88th ABW 



acquisitions
#### CITY OF PANAMA CITY, Appellant, v. ANDINA, INC. and Columbus Rogers, Appellees.

No. 1D11-0297.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2011.

Rowlett W. Bryant and Halley A. Stark of Bryant *&*Higby, Chartered, Panama City, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The City of Panama City seeks review of a nonfmal order granting in part Appel-lees’ motion for partial summary judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In response to our order to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed, the City asserts that the order is reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B), which authorizes appeals of nonfinal orders that “grant ... injunctions.” The City concedes that the order on its face does not grant injunctive relief, but it argues that the order is reviewable under this rule because, by granting summary judgment in favor of Appel-lees on the counts in the complaint seeking injunctive and mandamus relief, the order necessarily has the effect of granting such relief against the City. We disagree.

Contrary to the City’s argument, the order does not grant injunctive or mandamus relief against the City, nor does the order have the practical effect of an injunction. The order does no more than grant a motion for partial summary judgment on the counts in Appellees’ complaint seeking injunctive and mandamus relief. The order does not enter judgment on those counts, nor does the order direct the City to take, or refrain from taking, any action. *See Gleicher v. Claims Verification Inc.,*908 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (explaining that an order that “does not yet enjoin anyone” and that does not have the “practical effect” of an injunction is not renewable under rule 9.130(a)(3)(B)); *Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, P.A. v. West Fla. Reg’l Med. Ctr.,*993 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“Because the order on appeal did no more than grant summary judgment, the order is not final.”). Accordingly, the order is not reviewable under rule 9.130(b)(3)(B) and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

DISMISSED.

DAVIS, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
#### William E. GREENE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Fairfax County Adult Detention Center; Fairfax County Board of Supervisor’s, Defendants-Ap-pellees.

No. 00-6909.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 15, 2000.

Decided Jan. 5, 2001.

William E. Greene, pro se.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

William E. Greene appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Greene v. Virginia Dep’t of Corrections,*No. CA-00-103-AM (EJD.Va. filed June 12, 2000; entered June 13, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made to thatcertain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2011, by andamong Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, ADivision of PNC Bank, NA, as Special Servicer, Deutsche Bank Trust CompanyAmericas, as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator, Tax Administrator and Custodian, and Trimont Real EstateAdvisors, Inc., as Trust Advisor, with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2011-C5 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.11 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.            A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been madeunder my supervision, and

 

2.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, hasfulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1159 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for full benefits 

for disabled widows and widowers without regard to age. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2007 

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide 

for full benefits for disabled widows and widowers without regard to age. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FULL BENEFITS FOR DISABLED WIDOWS AND 

4 WIDOWERS WITHOUT REGARD TO AGE. 

5 (a) ELIGIBILITY FOR WIDOW’S INSURANCE BENE6 FITS.—Section 202(e) of the Social Security Act (42 

7 U.S.C. 402(e)) is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by striking ‘‘has at9 tained age 50 but has not attained age 60 and’’; 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1159 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ‘‘after at2 taining age 50 if she was entitled before such mar3 riage occurred’’ and inserting ‘‘after having been en4 titled’’; and 

5 (3) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ‘‘after at6 taining age 50’’. 

7 (b) ELIGIBILITY FOR WIDOWER’S INSURANCE BENE8 FITS.—Section 202(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)) is 

9 amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by striking ‘‘has at11 tained age 50 but has not attained age 60 and’’; 

12 (2) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ‘‘after at13 taining age 50 if he was entitled before such mar14 riage occurred’’ and inserting ‘‘after having been en15 titled’’; and 

16 (3) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ‘‘after at17 taining age 50’’. 

18 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM REDUCTIONS IN BENEFITS. 

19 Section 202(q) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

20 402(q)) is amended— 

21 (1) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ‘‘age 50’’ 

22 and inserting ‘‘age 60’’; and 

23 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

24 paragraph: 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1159 IH

1 ‘‘(12) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

2 section, there shall be no reduction under this subsection 

3 in the widow’s or widower’s insurance benefit of an indi4 vidual for any month in which such individual is under 

5 a disability (as defined in section 223(d)); and none of 

6 the provisions of this subsection shall apply with respect 

7 to such benefit even though such benefit may have been 

8 so reduced prior to the onset of such disability.’’. 

9 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND REDETERMINATION OF BEN10 EFITS. 

11 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

12 respect to monthly insurance benefits payable under title 

13 II of the Social Security Act for months after the month 

14 in which this Act is enacted. The Commissioner of Social 

15 Security (without the necessity of any application there16 for) shall redetermine the amount of any widow’s or wid17 ower’s insurance benefit which is payable for the month 

18 in which this Act is enacted in order to reflect such 

19 amendments as provided in the preceding sentence. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
#### W. D. McGonagill et al. v. J. T. Evans, County Judge.

(No. 5902.)

Error from Coleman County.

M. A. Martin and W. L. Vining, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 466. *County convict's bond held valid; case stated.*One Cook was convicted of keeping, etc., a gaming table, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25 and imprisonment in the county jail for ten days. Having been placed in jail, and failing to pay said fine and cost, he was hired out under the provisions of article 3602, Revised Statutes, and plaintiffs in error hired him, executing a bond in the sum of $103, that being the amount of fine and costs adjudged against him. This suit was instituted to recover the amount of said bond under article 3606, Revised Statutes, in justice’s court, and judgment was rendered against plaintiffs in error for the full amount of said bond and costs; and on their appeal to the county court a like judgment was there rendered. *566Plaintiffs in error urge sevei’al objections to the validity of the bond. 1. That the conviction of Cook was under the act of March 19, 1885, which act was held to be unconstitutional by this court [Hunt v. State, 22 App. 396]; and that, therefore, said conviction and all proceedings thereunder are void. *Held:*It is not made to appear in the record affirmatively that said conviction was had under said void law. It will be presumed, in the absence of a contrary showing, that it was had under the law in force (article 358 of the Penal Code), and is a legal conviction. 2. That said bond is unauthorized and void because the punishment assessed against Cook, being imprisonment as well as fine, he could not legally be hired out. And in support of this objection, article 816, Code Criminal Procedure, and article 3602, Sayles’ Civil Statutes, are cited. *Held:*No reason is perceived why a convict, after serving his term of imprisonment, may not be hired out to pay off the fine and costs. In this case the bond shows a hiring for the fine aná costs only. Where a county has a work-house or county farm the convict may be made to discharge both fine and imprisonment by labor. [R. S. arts. 3585, 3586.] 3. That the bond does not state when the amount total thereof was due. It states that $15 thereof was due on the 10th day of July, and $15 on the 10th day of each month thereafter, including December. *Held:*In this respect the bond is in compliance with the statute. There is nothing in the statute which prohibits a stipulation for monthly payments of hire. 4. That it is not shown that before he was hired out Cook made oath in writing that he was unable to pay the fine and costs adjudged against him. *Held:*This objection, even if a valid one, is contradicted by the record. It was proved that Cook made such oath before he was hired out. But the county authorities had power to hire Cook out whether he made such oath or not, he having been committed to jail in default of payment of fine and costs. [R. S. art. 3602.]

May 1, 1889.

Affirmed.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 118 

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to authorize 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prices for 

part D covered drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 

the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security 

Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services to negotiate prices for part D covered drugs 

for Medicare beneficiaries. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE MEDICARE PART D 

4 DRUG PRICES. 

5 Subsection (i) of section 1860D–11 of the Social Se6 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–111) is amended to read as 

7 follows: 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 118 IH

1 ‘‘(i) NEGOTIATION AUTHORITY.—The Secretary is 

2 authorized to negotiate with drug manufacturers and 

3 pharmacies prices charged to PDP sponsors and MA orga4 nizations for covered part D drugs provided under this 

5 title.’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
#### Fritz Brown v. Allen Brown.

(No. 1836.)

January 27, 1886.

Appeal from De Witt; County.

Kleberg & Crain, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 82. *Jurisdiction of county court of suit for damages to real estate.*Appellant brought this suit for damages, alleging that appellee unlawfully broke and entered his close and committed trespasses thereon, by cutting timber, etc., to plaintiff’s damage $450. . A demurrer was sustained to the petition upon the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction of the cause, as it involved title to land, and the suit was dismissed. *Held,*error. The action was for damages, and the title to land was not involved, or if title to land was involved, it did not so appear from the petition, and the petition showed that the court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter. .

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 Restored B-29 Superfortress flies for first time in 60 yearsPublished July 18, 2016
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Rachel Waller
                        
                        
                        22nd Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs
                **MCCONNELL AIR FORCE BASE, Kan. (AFNS) --**
                After 16 years of hard work and dedication from numerous volunteers around the Wichita area, a B-29 Superfortress, also known as Doc, took to the skies July 17 here for its first flight since 1956.
“I never thought I would live to see this day, but I did,” said Connie Palacioz, who served as a riveter during World War II.
Palacioz, now 91, was 18 years old when she put the first rivets on Doc when it was being manufactured.
Prior to the flight, the aircraft sat in the Mojave Desert for decades after being decommissioned and serving as a ballistic target at a Navy weapons range. An aircraft enthusiast found the B-29 in 1987.
“They’ve done a beautiful job on Doc,” said Charles Chauncey, a WWII B-29 pilot who flew 35 combat missions. “This is a great day for Wichita and I’m so pleased to have the crew here to fly it.”
Although this is the first time a B-29 has flown out of McConnell Air Force Base, the 22nd Air Refueling Wing can trace its heritage back to the 22nd Bombardment Group, which flew the aircraft during the Korean War.
“Thank you so much to McConnell Air Force Base,” said Jim Murphy, the project manager for Doc’s Friends, a nonprofit that helped restore the B-29. “The Air Force guys came over and helped us lace in the fuel cells. They’ve helped polish the airplane and they have helped and been assistance to us every step of the way.”B-29 



heritage 



restoration 



McConnell AFB 



WWII 



Doc Related Links
        Airman helps restore historic aircraft
            
            A family tradition: Grandfather, grandson maintain KC-135s