alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 AFRL's directed energy receives AF Organizational Excellence awardPublished Aug. 28, 2014
                        
                        By Jeanne Dailey
                        
                        
                        Air Force Research Laboratory
                **KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force Research Laboratory's Directed Energy Directorate received the Air Force Organizational Excellence Award, its fifth AFOE award since 1997.
Bringing "Speed of Light to the Fight," the directorate focuses its research and development on high power electromagnetics, laser systems, adaptive optics, and weapons modeling and simulation for directed energy technologies. 
"This award recognizes the extraordinary work our Airmen do each and every day," said Maj. Gen. Tom Masiello, AFRL commander. "Directed energy technologies are providing unique and revolutionary capabilities to several United States Air Force mission areas. The men and women of the Directed Energy Directorate can be proud of their game-changing advances in support of the nation and our warfighters."
The award recognizes the directorate for transforming modern high energy laser systems by improving the size, weight and power of lasers needed to make them combat ready, and for developing a non-lethal technology that can be used on air platforms to disrupt an enemy's electronics while causing little or no damage to buildings or harm to people.
It also cites the directorate's breakthroughs in space situational awareness research that provides 24/7 space imaging and the best-ever images of satellites with ground-based adaptive optics. The directorate operates the Department of Defense's largest telescopes, the 3.6-meter telescope on Maui, Hawaii and the 3.5-meter telescope located on Kirtland Air Force Base. 
"Innovation in science and technology, along with our great Airmen, will keep our Air Force ready for any challenge," said Dr. David Hardy, director of the Directed Energy Directorate. "We have a superb team here, and I'm thrilled to see our people recognized for their creativity."
Military and civilian members assigned or attached to the AFRL Directed Energy Directorate from May 1, 2011 to April 30, 2013 are authorized to wear the ribbon. Personnel who have questions regarding the wear of the ribbon should contact their local Force Support Squadron. 
The Air Force Research Laboratory headquarters is located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and is a unit of the Air Force Materiel Command.AFRL 



Kirtland AFB 



N.M. 



AF Organizational Excellence award
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.31

                                 GENERAL RELEASE

         This General Release Agreement (Agreement) dated April 20, 2003, is
between ESCO Technologies Inc., a Delaware corporation (ESCO) and Dennis J.
Moore (Moore), an individual.

         WHEREAS, Moore is a former employee of ESCO.

         WHEREAS, upon Moore's decision to retire at age 65, ESCO & Moore
entered into a Transition Agreement.

         WHEREAS, pursuant to such Agreement, ESCO agreed to continue to make
payments on a certain lease (Lease) for a 2001 Cadillac Deville automobile, VIN
1G6KF5790IU143519 (the Automobile) that ESCO was leasing for Moore's benefit
prior to his retirement.

         WHEREAS, ESCO has entered or will enter into a purchase agreement with
Enterprise to purchase the Automobile.

         WHEREAS, Moore desires to release ESCO from all future obligations
arising from or related to the Automobile.

     THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements made herein and other
valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged,
Moore and ESCO agree as follows:

     1.   Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, ESCO shall pay the
          sum of $29,102.04 to Enterprise in consideration of the Automobile.

     2.   The Automobile will be titled as directed by Moore. ESCO shall
          relinquish all right and interest in the Automobile.

     3.   Moore hereby accepts ownership of the Automobile and knowingly,
          voluntarily and irrevocably agrees to fully and completely release
          ESCO from any and all rights and claims, including without limitation,
          demands, causes of action, charges, complaints, promises, grievances,
          losses, damages, liabilities, debts, or injuries, whether known or
          unknown, contingent or matured, at law or in equity or in arbitration,
          which Moore holds or has ever held against ESCO resulting from or
          related to the Automobile. It is expressly agreed and understood that
          this is a General Release. Moore shall hereinafter assume all
          responsibility for ownership of the automobile including taxes,
          maintenance, insurance, etc.

<PAGE>

     4.   This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of each
          of the parties, his respective assigns, successors in interest, and
          legal representatives.

     5.   This Agreement is made in the State of Missouri and shall in all
          respects be interpreted and enforced and governed by and under the
          laws of said State.

Dennis J. Moore

By:   /s/ D.J. Moore
      -----------------------
Date: 4/9/03

ESCO Technologies Inc.

By:   /s/ V.L. Richey, Jr.
      -----------------------
Date: 4/10/03
#### DANYELLE JEFFERY *v.*BLUE RIBBON LEASING, INC., ET AL.

(AC 23509)

Lavery, C. J., and Foti and McLachlan, Js.

Submitted on briefs June 11

officially released July 8, 2003

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 15, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23179]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

42 CFR Part 411


Exclusions from Medicare and Limitations on Medicare Payment

CFR Correction

    In Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 400 to 413, 
revised as of October 1, 2009, on page 475, in Sec.  411.357, paragraph 
(a)(5)(ii) is revised and the second paragraph (a)(6) is removed.
    The revised text is set forth to read as follows;


Sec.  411.357  Exceptions to the referral prohibition related to 
compensation arrangements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) Using a formula based on--
    (A) A percentage of the revenue raised, earned, billed, collected, 
or otherwise attributable to the services performed or business 
generated in the office space; or
    (B) Per-unit of service rental charges, to the extent that such 
charges reflect services provided to patients referred by the lessor to 
the lessee.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-23179 Filed 9-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,308
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,511
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     23,593
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,136
<PP&E>                                          11,478
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,479
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,234
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,038
<OTHER-SE>                                          70
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,006
<SALES>                                         30,410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,223
<CGS>                                           19,796
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     9
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 919
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,035)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,726)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,493)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.61)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 34.5

LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors

Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Managements Report on Assessment of 2014 Compliance with Applicable
Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (Managements Assertion), that Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions (SEC) Regulation AB
for services by the Company that are encompassed by contractual obligations to perform Regulation AB reporting (the Platform), including only those asset-backed securities transactions defined below, as of and for the year ended December 31,
2014, excluding the following criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(1)(i-iv), 1122(d)(2)(i-vii), 1122(d)(3)(ii-iv), 1122(d)(4)(i-vi) and 1122(d)(4)(viii-xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company
with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The Appendix B to managements assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the
Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by
the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the
servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed
transaction in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the
Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2014 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ McGladrey LLP 
|                  
|Irvine, California
|March 4, 2015
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 469 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 469

To assist the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in stabilizing 
              the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2013

 Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To assist the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in stabilizing 
              the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program.

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

SECTION 1. STABILIZING THE HECM PROGRAM.

    Section 255 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (d)(8)--
                    (A) by inserting ``property maintenance,'' before 
                ``insurance''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``, including matters that set 
                forth terms and provisions for establishing escrow 
                accounts, performing financial assessments, or limiting 
                the amount of any payment made available under the 
                mortgage'' before the semicolon; and
            (2) in subsection (h)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``; and'' and 
                inserting a semicolon;
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and 
                inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following new 
                paragraph:
            ``(3) by notice or mortgagee letter, establish any 
        additional or alternative requirements that the Secretary, in 
        his or her discretion, determines necessary to more effectively 
        carry out the provisions of this section, and any such notice 
        or mortgagee letter shall take effect upon issuance.''.
                                 <all>
```
583 A.2d 347

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DOUGLAS GRIFFIN.

March 26, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
**EXHIBIT
      31.1**


**CERTIFICATION**





I,
      Philip
      Holmes, certify that:





1.
        I have
        reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Kings Road Entertainment,
        Inc.;
 
 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;
  Date:
        August 28, 2008


/s/
                Philip HolmesPhilip
                HolmesPresident
                and Principal Executive Officer
#### Truxton Davidson v. A. J. Horidam.

(No. 2122.)

Appeal from Goliad County.

W. L. Davidson, for appellant.

Patton & Fly, for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 238. *Jurisdiction of court of appeals as to amount; plea in reconvention in county court after appeal from justice's court will not confer; case stated.*Horidam sued Davidson in justice’s court to recover $20, the alleged value of two yearlings, and for $50 damages for the wrongful conversion of said animals. He recovered judgment in said court for $20 and costs. Davidson appealed to the county court, and in said last named court he for the first time pleaded in reconvention in the cause, claiming damages in the sum of $160. Upon trial *de novo*in the county court, Horidam again recovered judgment for $20 and all costs, and from said judgment Davidson has appealed to this court. *Held:*This court has no appellate jurisdiction in civil cases where the *285judgment rendered by the county court, nor the amount in controversy, either exceeds $100 exclusive of interest and costs. [R. S. arts. 1068, 1382; W. & W. Con. Rep. §510; 2 W. Con. Rep. §§ 504, 709.] Davidson’s plea in reconvention, not having been pleaded in the justice’s court, cannot be regarded, and cannot confer jurisdiction of this appeal upon this court. [2 W. Con. Rep. § 710.]

February 9, 1887.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 12/31/99
AUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENT 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>                                          16,936
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  144,955
<ALLOWANCES>                                    28,855
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               211,965
<PP&E>                                         288,810
<DEPRECIATION>                                (74,721)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,030,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          291,207
<BONDS>                                        719,569
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,975
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,715
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,030,444
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               351,697
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  324,385
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               295,477
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                27,188
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              73,947
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (341,394)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (341,397)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (341,397)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.71)


</TABLE>
120430-F-JZ013-781.JPG
            BRIGADIER GENERAL JACK C. IHLEBrigadier General Jack C. Ihle is commander of the Air Force Reserve Command's 917 Wing, Barksdale AFB, La. The 917th is equipped with the B-52 Stratofortress and A-10 Thunderbolt II.
General Ihle was born in Cincinnati, Ohio. He graduated from Lakota High School, West Chester, Ohio, in 1964 and entered the Air Force in 1969 after commissioning through the Reserve Officer Training Corps program at Ohio State University. General Ihle was recalled to active duty in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm where he flew 40 combat missions in the A-10. He is a command pilot with more than 5000 hours flying time.**EDUCATION**1969 Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Engineering, Ohio State University
1976 Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala.
1980 Master of Business Administration, Louisiana Tech University
1987 National Security Management Course, by correspondence **ASSIGNMENTS**1. February 1970 - February 1971, Student, pilot training, Moody Air Force Base, Ga.
2. March 1971 - November 1971, F-4 training, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.
3. November 1971 - May 1975, 53rd Tactical Fighter Squadron, Bitburg Air Base, Germany
4. May 1975 - December 1975, 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Korat Royal Thailand Air Force Base, Thailand
5. January 1976 - August 1977, 4440 Tactical Fighter Training Group - Red Flag, Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.
6. August 1977 - January 1993, A-37 and A-10 Instructor Pilot, Commander 46th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, Wing Deputy Commander for Operations, Barksdale Air Force Base, La.
7. January 1993 - August 1995, Commander 926th Fighter Wing, Naval Air Station New Orleans, La.
8. August 1995 - April 1998, 10th Air Force Chief of Operations, Bergstrom Air Reserve Base and Naval Air Station Ft. Worth, Texas.
9. May 1998 - April 2005, Commander 917th Wing, Barksdale Air Force Base, La.**FLIGHT INFORMATION**Rating: Command pilot
Flight hours: More than 5000
Aircraft flown: F-4, A-37, A-10, F-16, B-52**MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS**Distinguished Service Medal
Legion of Merit
Meritorious Service Medal
Air Medal with four oak leaf clusters
Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters
Air Force Achievement Medal
Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Valor
Combat Readiness Medal with five oak leaf clusters
National Defense Service Medal
Southwest Asia Service Medal
Humanitarian Service Medal
Armed Forces Reserve Medal
Kuwait Liberation Medal**EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION**Second Lieutenant Dec. 19, 1969
First Lieutenant March 7, 1973
Captain March 7, 1977
Major June 9, 1982
Lieutenant Colonel June 17, 1988
Colonel July 1992
Brigadier General April 3, 2000
(Current as of April 2005)
#### Julius SELLERS, Jr. et al. v. EL PASO INDUSTRIAL ENERGY, LP, et al.

No. 2010-CC-2702.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 2011.

In re Sellers Jr., Julius et al.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supei-visory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 63,203; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-C-824.

Denied.
No. 11,593.

#### Payne *v.*West et al.

Filed Jan. 7, 1885.

*Deposition.*— Certificate.•— *Mistalce.*— Clerical *Error.*— Where an officer by whom a deposition has been taken states in his certificate that the *deponent,*instead of the *deposition,*was reduced to writing, the mistake is a mere harmless clerical error.

From the Perry Circuit Court.

*E. E. Dumb*and *H. J. May,*for appellant.

*S. Joseph*and *S. B. Hatfield,*for appellees.

Elliott, J. —

The officer by whom the deposition of one of the appellee’s witnesses was taken, instead of stating in his certificate that “ the .deposition was reduced to writing,” stated that *“*the deponent was reduced to writing.” There is more of the ludicrous than there is of harm in the officer’s mistake. It is apparent that the error is a mere clerical one, harming nobody. The context plainly shows the character of the mistake, and that it was the deposition that was properly reduced to writing.

Judgment affirmed, with fivé per centum damages.