alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 April's Airman magazine issue now availablePublished April 6, 2015
                        
                        By Air Force News Service
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                The April issue of Airman magazine is now available to download and is viewable through a Web browser.
This month’s issue of Airman focuses exclusively on Red Flag – the world-renowned, aerial-combat exercise at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.
In the cover story titled “The Aggressors,” you’ll meet the “bad guys” of Red Flag, who act as the enemy for Air Force, joint and coalition pilots to test themselves against in the skies above Nevada. You’ll also meet members of the Royal Norwegian Air Force, who bring a different mindset to the exercise.
Lastly, in “Maintaining Red Flag,” you’ll learn about the U.S. Air Force maintainers who work tirelessly to keep the Red Flag aircraft operating around the clock. We hope you enjoy this behind-the-scenes look at Red Flag, where more than 145,000 aircrew members have been trained for combat over its 40 years of existence.
You can download Airman magazine’s April issue for your tablet here:**• Apple version• Android version**
Airman magazine provides an interactive experience for tablet readers and a limited interactive version is viewable in Web browser format. **Click here** to read this issue on your PC/Mac.
For more stories, visit **Airman Online**, the website for the official magazine of the U.S. Air Force.red flag 



April's Airman Magazine
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statement of operations and consolidated balance sheet and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000919957
<NAME> COMCAST UK CABLE PARTNERS LTD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U. K. POUNDS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.6645
<CASH>                                          56,327
<SECURITIES>                                    23,305
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,414
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,714)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                88,726
<PP&E>                                         270,588
<DEPRECIATION>                                (22,800)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 466,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,569
<BONDS>                                        219,579
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           501
<OTHER-SE>                                     204,883
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   466,689
<SALES>                                         25,205
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,701
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (38,608)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (12,482)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (12,285)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (33,648)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (33,648)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (33,648)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.67)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SAMANTHA CHARLTON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 256 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SAMANTHA CHARLTON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 257 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of September, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED. Further, the Application for Leave to file Amicus Brief is DENIED as moot.
583 A.2d 316

#### THOMAS J. REILLY v. MARK A. SANTOMENNA.

February 6, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>

</title></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    
    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
#### Thomas J. Peel v. Farmers’ and Merchants’ Bank.

(No. 1574, Op. Book No. 3, p. 660.)

Appeal from Lamar County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 180. *Garnishee; not liable on negotiable note,*unless, *etc.*It is impossible to charge the garnishee as the debtor *72of the defendant, unless it appear affirmatively that at the time of the garnishment the defendant had a cause of action against him for the recovery of a legal debt due or to become due by afflux of time. Thus, where the garnishee answered that he had executed to the defendant a negotiable promissory note, upon which he still owed a balance, it devolved upon the plaintiff to prove, in order to hold the garnishee liable, that the note had been transferred by the defendant before the service of the writ of garnishment. [Drake on Attach. § 575; Bassett v. Garthwaite, 22 Tex. 230; Iglehart v. Moore, 21 Tex. 501.]

Beversed and remanded.
Exhibit 31.2



Certifications



I, Edward Escudero, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Petro Financial Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting: and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                    |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 16, 2005 
|/s/ Edward Escudero
|                    |  | (Edward Escudero)                    
|                    |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
News United States Air Force
 Davis-Monthan sets standard for tracking deployed AirmenPublished May 24, 2016
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Mya M. Crosby
                        
                        
                        355th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFNS)  --**
                Airmen at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base created an innovative tool, now used Air Combat Command-wide, for leadership to track their Airmen downrange.Two Airmen from the 355th Communications Squadron crafted the tool, called the Blue Line Tracker, for a simpler way to compile this information.“This could possibly replace the different tools that people use to track their deployed personnel and it makes things much easier for them,” said Senior Airman Brian Williams, a 355th CS knowledge management journeyman. “There was no set standard between the units and when we all tried to come together and create a standard it was very difficult because they all had their set ways of doing things. We created a standardized system where a lot of the work is done behind the scenes.”Maj. Jonathan Guerrero, the 355th CS deputy commander, presented the tracker to ACC leadership in March after the squadron successfully created and utilized the tool at the start of fiscal year 2015.“We had over 1,200 folks deployed, which was the largest deployment on base since World War II,” he said. With the help of the 355th Force Support Squadron, Installation Personnel Readiness pulls deployment requirement manning documents from a database that provides the Air Force cross-functional integration for the four main functional domains: operations, logistics, manpower and personnel.This information is later imported into the tool. The tool is automatically updated every week taking only a few minutes.After the six default queries to input personal information about the deployed member is completed, the squadrons have the choice of entering optional data fields such as care package sent, spouse contact, and deployed email.The wing commander all the way down to unit deployment managers all have access to the tracker to view unclassified information on all deployed Airmen in their unit.The innovative tracker is now being used by multiple ACC installations to aid base leaders’ management of their deployed Airmen.innovation 



ACC 



Davis-Monthan AFB 



FM 



deployment
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-191-CR

RONALD SHORTY APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Ronald Shorty pleaded guilty to sexual assault pursuant to a

plea bargain agreement. On January 5, 2009, the trial court placed him on five

years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. The State filed a petition

to proceed to adjudication on March 12, 2009, alleging that Shorty had violated

two conditions of his community supervision. Shorty’s court-appointed trial

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
counsel filed a motion for competency exam, and the trial court appointed Dr.

Barry Norman to conduct the exam. Dr. Norman concluded that Shorty was

competent to stand trial. Shorty pleaded “true” to the allegations in the State’s

petition to proceed to adjudication. The State waived one allegation in its

petition. The trial court found that the second allegation in the State’s petition

was true, adjudicated Shorty guilty, and sentenced him to nine years’

confinement.

Shorty’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw

as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel averred

that, in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and

motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California

2

by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible

grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the

appeal. See Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

1995, no pet.). This court afforded Shorty the opportunity to file a brief on his

own behalf, but he did not do so.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw

on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of

2 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

2
Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the

record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);

Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 922–23. Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351

(1988).

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the record. We agree

with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find

nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

SUE WALKER

JUSTICE

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: January 14, 2010

3
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00337-CR

Talvin Djuan Garley

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

122nd District Court of Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18-CR-0976

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 30, 2022
EX-35.5
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1086-120, 12th Floor
550 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334


ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
as of October 1, 2011, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor,
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, , as Master Servicer and Midland Loan
Services, A Division of PNC Bank, NA, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National
Association, as Trustee, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, inc., as Trust Advisor,
and Wells Frago Bank, National Association, as Custodian, Certificate
Administrator, Certificate Registrar and Authenticating Agent, with respect to
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2011-C3 (the "Agreement").
Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice
President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from
   January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"), and of
   its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under
   my supervision, and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has
   fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
   respects throughout the Reporting Period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 8th
day of March 2014.


/s/ Daniel Bober
Daniel Bober
Executive Vice President
Wells Fargo Bank


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

(logo) Together we'll go far
News United States Air Force
 When responding to surveys, check to ensure they're officialPublished Oct. 16, 2014
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Airmen around the world are asked to respond to many surveys, some of which are official and legitimate. Others, however, are not official and Airmen should not respond to them.
According to Renee Tealer of the Air Force Survey Office, Air Force Personnel Center, Airmen typically get three types of surveys.
Local surveys of unit members on topics that are under the control of the unit commander, such as gym hours, parking, and help desk availability, may be authorized by that commander and require no further approval. Such surveys typically involve local issues of direct interest to the organization or commander, Tealer said.
The second type is an Air Force-level survey about issues or topics that are not purely local.
"Many surveys request information regarding your attitudes and opinions about topics outside of or above the level of your organization," Tealer said. "If you receive an attitude or opinion survey that appears to be distributed across multiple locations or organizations, that the survey must have a Survey Control Number (SNC) from our office." 
If such a survey does not have a control number, members may not use government resources, like duty hours and work equipment, to respond.
"In many cases, Air Force entities that send out unauthorized surveys are unaware that they are violating Air Force instruction, but the surveys are unauthorized nonetheless, so Airmen are not authorized to use government time or equipment to respond," Tealer said.
Before responding to what appears to be an Air Force survey, Tealer advises Airmen to look for an SCN from the Air Force Survey Office.
A third common type of survey comes from the Department of Defense level. Such surveys do not require an Air Force SCN, but the DOD has its own survey approval process, she explained.
Surveys approved at higher levels will have a Reports Control Symbol or Office of Management and Budget number. Official DOD surveys are listed under DOD Information Collections.
Airmen who get a survey can check the approved AF surveys list on the Air Force Portal at https://www.my.af.mil/gcss-af/USAF/content/ApprovedSurveys, or contact the survey office at af.surveys@us.af.mil.
For more information about other personnel issues, visit the myPers website.*(Information courtesy of Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs)*PII 



information protection 



cybersecurity 



surveys 



privacy 



personnel 



AFPC Related Links
        Approved DOD Surveys (AF Portal)
            
            DOD Information Collection Surveys
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Vincent MARINELLO.

No. 2010-K-2494.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Marinello, Vincent; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or *661Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 119805; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1260.

Denied.
H. R. 1124 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

An Act 

To extend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FIVE–YEAR REAUTHORIZATION OF TUITION ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAMS. 

(a) PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAM.—Section 3(i) of the District of 

Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (sec. 38–2702(i), DC Official 

Code) is amended by striking ‘‘each of the 7 succeeding fiscal years’’ 

and inserting ‘‘each of the 12 succeeding fiscal years’’. 

(b) PRIVATE SCHOOL PROGRAM.—Section 5(f) of such Act (sec. 

38–2704(f), DC Official Code) is amended by striking ‘‘each of the 

7 succeeding fiscal years’’ and inserting ‘‘each of the 12 succeeding 

fiscal years’’. 

SEC. 2. MEANS TESTING. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(c)(2) of the District of Columbia 

College Access Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1324; Public Law 106–98) 

is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon at the end; 

(2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end 

and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(G) is from a family with a taxable annual income of 

less than $1,000,000.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 5(c)(2) of the District 

of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1328; Public 

Law 106–98) is amended by striking ‘‘through (F)’’ and inserting 

‘‘through (G)’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CHOICETEL
COMMUNICATIONS, INC CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATION AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,323
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,187
<PP&E>                                             113
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,150
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,947
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,150
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     5
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       10
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   292
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    297
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (66)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (231)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     161
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (17)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
#### Royal HAYES, Appellant, v. Samuel J. ROGERS, John L. Rogers and Laura Rogers, Individually and as Trustees of the Mary June Rogers Trust Dtd. September 29, 1978, Appellees.

No. 4D09-3230.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 2011.

Freeman W. Barner, Jr., and Brett C. Barner of Freeman Barner *&*Associates, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellant.

Jane Kreusler-Walsh of Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani *&*Vargas, P.A., and Michael J. Pike of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellees, Samuel J. Rogers and John L. Rogers.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See TeGrotenhuis v. Rice,*744 So.2d 1057, 1057-1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

STEVENSON, HAZOURI and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.