alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60834

Summary Calendar

CHRISTINE T. HUTCHINSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:98-CV-303-RG)

-------------------- June 27, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, AND BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Christine T. Hutchinson appeals the

district court's judgment affirming the Social Security

Commissioner's decision to deny her disability benefits. She

argues that the A dministrative Law Judge ("ALJ") used the wrong

legal standard to determine that she did not have a severe

impairment and that the ALJ's decision was not supported by

substantial evidence.2

We have reviewed the record and pa rties' briefs, and we

conclude that the district court’s ruling is correct. The ALJ

applied the proper standard under Stone v. Heckler

, 752 F.2d 1099,

1101 (5th Cir. 1985), in determining that Hutchinson's impairments

were not severe at the time that her insured status ended. We also

agree with the district court, contrary to Hutchinson's assertion,

that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. S ee

Richardson v. Perales

, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Leggett v. Chater

,

67 F.3d 558, 564 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
News United States Air Force
 B-52 Stratofortress joins coalition teamPublished April 9, 2016
                        
                        By Air Forces Central Command Public Affairs
                **AL UDEID AIR BASE, Qatar (AFNS) --**
                U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress aircraft from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, arrived at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, April 9, in support of theater requirements and Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria and the wider international community.
"The B-52 will provide the coalition continued precision and deliver desired airpower effects,” said Lt. Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the commander of U.S. Air Forces Central Command and Combined Forces Air Component. “As a multi-role platform, the B-52 offers diverse capabilities including delivery of precision weapons and the flexibility and endurance needed to support the combatant commanders’ priorities and strengthen the coalition team."
The 19-nation air coalition consists of numerous strike aircraft and the B-52s will bring their unique capability to the fight against ISIL. 
The B-52 is a long-range heavy bomber that can perform a variety of missions including strategic attack, close-air support, air interdiction and maritime operations. 
Crews will be available to carry out missions in both Iraq and Syria as needed to support air tasking order requirements.
"The B-52 demonstrates our continued resolve to apply persistent pressure on (ISIL) and defend the region in any future contingency,” Brown said.
This deployment is the first basing of the B-52s in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility in 26 years. The B-52s were based in Saudi Arabia supporting Operation Desert Storm. The B-52s were last flown operationally during Operation Enduring Freedom in May 2006, and during Exercise Eager Lion, a USCENTCOM-led multilateral exercise in Jordan, in May 2015.
The coalition conducted more than 33,000 airpower missions in support of OIR. Since the beginning of the operation, the coalition struck about 459 vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, 776 mortar systems, 1,933 logistics buildings housing these weapons, 662 weapons caches, and 1,341 staging areas.
Imagery will be posted here.AFCENT 



B-52 Stratofortress 



coalition
Exhibit 10.33



BEA SYSTEMS INC.

MEMORANDUM OF EMPLOYMENT



August 30, 2004



|        |  |   |  |                                               
|------- |  | - |  | ----------------------------------------------
|To      |  | : |  | Mark Carges                                   
|        |  |  
|From    |  | : |  | Alfred Chuang                                 
|        |  |  
|CC      |  | : |  | Jeanne Wu                                     
|        |  |  
|Subject |  | : |  | Confirmation of Promotion and new Compensation



Mark, Im happy to confirm your
promotion to Chief Technology Officer, reporting to me, effective August 1, 2004. Your new role and compensation have been approved by the Compensation Committee, as follows:



Cash



Your new annual base salary is $325,000 and your bonus target is 75% of your base, providing an OTE of $568,750. The bonus plan document (FY05
Performance Bonus Plan) is attached for your reference.



Equity



We are also providing 50,000 stock options with standard 4
year vesting period (1 year cliff from grant date and then monthly vesting thereafter). The exercise price of your option and grant date will be set by Board action (unanimous written consent) and will be the closing market price on the day prior to
the Board approval date.



Congratulations! I look forward to the new
possibilities and contributions before us.



Please let me know if you have any
questions.



Thanks,



Alfred
## THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS Aun-rmu. T-6 7137ll April 19, 1977

The Honorable Carl C. Hardin, Jr. Executive Director Texas State Board of Dental Examiners 2101MacArthur Blvd.,No. 110 Irving, Texas 75061 Opinion No. H-983 Re: Exemption of certain dentists from annual registration.
Dear Mr. Hardin: You have requested our opinion concerning the authority of the Board of Dental Examiners to exempt from annual registration full-timeprofessors at dental colleges, residents, interns, and full-time employees of the United States Public Health Service. Article 4551b-1,V.T.C.S., exemptsvarious persons from the scope of the definition of dentistry, including:

1) members of the faculty of a reputable dental college or schoolwhere such faculty members perform their services for the sole benefit of such school or college . . . 9) dental interns,dental residentsand dental assistants as defined and regulatedby the Texas State Board of Dental Examiners in its rules and regulations. InAttorney General Opinion H-890 (1976)we said that a licensingboard could not enlarge upon exemptions created by statute. Thus, ingeneral, only thosepersons within article 4551b-1may be exempted. Accordingly,professors are exempted so long as they "perform their services for the solebenefit of [their] . . . schoolor college." The Board is expressly authorized to enact rules and regulationsdefining, regulating and exempting dental interns and dental residents. Finally, this office has previouslyheld that employees of theUnited States Public Health Service are exempted so long as they

p. 4092The Honorable Carl C. Hardin,Jr..- page 2 (H-983)

perform servicesonly for the Health Service. Attorney General OpinionV-1045 (1950). See 'Sperry v. Florida, 373 - U.S. 379 (1963);AttorneyGeneral Opinion O-4764 ( 1942). SUMMARY Professors at dental colleges and schools are exempted from annual registrationwith the Board of Dental Examiners so long as they perform their services for the sole benefit of such college or school. Dental internsand dental residentsmay be exempted under rules and regulations of the Board of Dental Examiners. Employees of the United States Public Health Service are exempt so longas they perform services only for the Health Service.

APPROVED: Very truly yours,

8 8%

.HI L Attorney General of

%& DAVID M. KENDALL, FirstAssistant Texas

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee km1

p. 4093
News United States Air Force
 B-52 conducts long-range training with Colombian forcesPublished April 5, 2016
                        
                        By U.S. Strategic Command
                **OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE, Neb. (AFNS) --**
                A B-52 Stratofortress from Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, conducted a long-range training sortie to engage with South American military partners April 1-2.During the course of the 27-hour, nonstop mission, the aircrew trained with the Colombian air force before executing a flyover of the International Fair of Air and Space in Santiago, Chile."This bomber mission is just one of many demonstrations of our ability to maintain a credible strategic defense force," said Adm. Cecil D. Haney, the U.S. Strategic Command commander. "Within the last year, U.S. Strategic Command bomber forces have conducted missions with Canadian, Colombian, Australian and Jordanian forces in national and international airspace. In addition to the outstanding training value realized by the U.S. and our partners, these missions demonstrate the credibility of our forces to address a global strategic and security environment that is more diverse and uncertain than at any time in our history."STRATCOM routinely displays its capability to command, control and conduct global bomber missions, most recently by deploying B-52s into the U.S. European Command and B-2 Spirits into the U.S. Pacific Command areas of responsibility last month.One of nine Defense Department unified combatant commands, STRATCOM has global strategic missions, assigned through the Unified Command Plan, which include strategic deterrence; space operations; cyberspace operations; joint electronic warfare; global strike; missile defense; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; combating weapons of mass destruction; and analysis and targeting.B-52 Stratofortress 



Minot AFB 



AFGSC 



B-52
EX-35.5
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Wells Fargo Bank, NA

CMBS Department
MAC N9401-011
1055 10th Avenue S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55414

Wells Fargo Bank, NA
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045


RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells
Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows for the calendar year 2012:


(a) a review of Wells Fargo's activities as Custodian under the servicing
agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the "Servicing Agreement(s)") has
been made under my supervision; and

(b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review Wells Fargo has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material
respects throughout the reporting period.

March 18, 2013

/s/ Kathleen Marshall
Kathleen Marshall
Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

(page)

To: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Schedule A

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

1 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2011-C3, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A as
Custodian.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1019 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 30
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1019

                          [Report No. 110-70]

   To designate the United States customhouse building located at 31 
  Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as the ``Rafael 
          Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2007

 Mr. Fortuno introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                             March 26, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the United States customhouse building located at 31 
  Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as the ``Rafael 
          Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States customhouse building located at 31 Gonzalez 
Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States customhouse building 
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.
                                                  House Calendar No. 30

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1019

                          [Report No. 110-70]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To designate the United States customhouse building located at 31 
  Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as the ``Rafael 
          Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 26, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Sept. 9Published Sept. 9, 2016
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                
**FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)**--  On this look around the Air Force, B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress crews deploy in preparation for exercise Ample Strike, and the Air Force Personnel Center starts accepting nominations for the 27th Spirit of Hope Award. Hosted by Staff Sgt. Traci Keller.
For previous episodes, click here.
Related links:
- Nomination window open for 2017 Spirit of Hope AwardATAF 



Ample Strike 



USAFE 



Spirit of Hope 



award 



AFPC 



B-1 



B-52
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1134 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the participation 

of physical therapists in the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2007 

Mr. BERRY (for himself, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. WYNN, Mr. TANNER, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. GERLACH, Ms. 

BORDALLO, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr. MARSHALL, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. 

HULSHOF, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. ROSS, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. 

MCCOTTER, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. PRICE of North 

Carolina, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. JONES

of North Carolina, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, 

Mr. OBERSTAR, and Mr. BOREN) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 

the participation of physical therapists in the National 

Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program, and 

for other purposes. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1134 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Physical Therapist 

3 Student Loan Repayment Eligibility Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS; PARTICIPA5 TION OF PHYSICAL THERAPISTS IN LOAN RE6 PAYMENT PROGRAM. 

7 (a) MISSION OF CORPS; DEFINITION OF PRIMARY

8 HEALTH SERVICES.—Section 331(a)(3)(D) of the Public 

9 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254d(a)(3)(D)) is amended 

10 by striking ‘‘or mental health,’’ and inserting ‘‘mental 

11 health, or physical therapy,’’. 

12 (b) LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM.—Section 338B of 

13 the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l–1) is 

14 amended— 

15 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ‘‘and physi16 cian assistants;’’ and inserting ‘‘physician assistants, 

17 and physical therapists;’’; and 

18 (2) in subsection (b)(1)— 

19 (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting be20 fore the semicolon the following: ‘‘, or have a 

21 doctoral or master’s degree in physical ther22 apy’’; 

23 (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting 

24 ‘‘physical therapy,’’ after ‘‘mental health,’’; and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HR 1134 IH

1 (C) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by inserting 

2 ‘‘physical therapy,’’ after ‘‘dentistry,’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### T. W. Robinson, County Judge, etc., v. H. C. Justin et al.

(No. 2811.)

Appeal from Wilbarger County.

*(Transferred from Austin.J*

R. P. Elliott, counsel for appellant.

Chas. Wheeler and F. O. Beckett, counsel for, appellees.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 376. *Appeal bond from justice's court held sufficient.*Appellant brought this suit against appellees in a justice’s court to recover upon a bond for the hire of a county convict. The justice rendered judgment that appellant take nothing by his suit, and that appellees recover of him all costs. Appellant gave notice of appeal to the county court, and within the time allowed by law delivered to the justice an appeal bond, which was approved and filed by said justice. In the county court, upon motion of appellees, the appeal was dismissed upon the ground that said appeal bond showed that the appeal was not prosecuted from a final judgment. The judgment rendered in the justice’s court is set out in full, *in hcec verba,*in the bond, and is unquestionably a final judgment. It is recited in the bond, after setting out said judgment, as follows: “from which said judgment for said costs, the said T. W. Robinson, judge as aforesaid, has appealed to the county court.” It was because of this recital that the court below held that the appeal was not prosecuted from a final judgment, but from that portion of the judgment only which adjudged the costs against appellant. *Held:*Such a construction of the bond is strained and erroneous. Appellant gave notice of appeal from the entire judgment, and it is manifest, if not from the face of the bond, from the entire record, that it was the intention and purpose of appellant to appeal *451from the entire judgment, and such is the legal effect of said appeal.

November 14, 1888.

Beversed and remanded.
#### G., C. & S. F. R’y Co. v. J. D. Kerfoot.

(No. 5956.)

Appeal from Brown County.

J. W. Terry, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 452. *Transfer of cause from county to district court vests jurisdiction absolutely in latter court; retransfer not authorized.*This cause was pending in the county court. Because of the disqualification of the judge of that court to try the same, it was transferred properly *551to tlie district court. While the cause was pending in the district court the disqualified county judge was succeeded in office by a judge qualified to try the cause, and thereupon the district court, upon motion of appellee, transferred the cause back to the county court, where it was tried and judgment rendered for appellee. *Held:*The cause was properly transferred from the county to the district court, and the effect of such transfer was to vest the latter court with absolute, unconditional jurisdiction over said cause. There is no authority found in the statutes for a retransfer of a cause in such case from the district to the county court. [R. S. arts. 1121, 1139; Hawes v. Foote, 64 Tex. 35.] The cause can* be tried only in the district court.

April 10, 1889.

Reversed and remanded.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6301

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO BRANCH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (4:01-cr-00061-HCM-1)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: August 2, 2012

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Branch appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction in 

sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Branch, No. 4:01-cr-00061-HCM1 (E.D. Va., Jan. 31, 2012). 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
#### Thomas SHARPE, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-7694.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 12, 2001.

Thomas Sharpe, Gouveneur, NY, pro se.

*75Daniel M. Schiavetta, Murphy *&*Higgins, New York, NY, for appellee.

Present FEINBERG, S0T0MAY0R and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Thomas J. McAvoy, Judge), it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Thomas Sharpe, M.D., appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Thomas J. McAvoy, *Judge*), dismissing his complaint *sua sponte*for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint sought to have the Medical Malpractice Insurance Association replace Sharpe’s appointed counsel in a state medical malpractice proceeding.

Courts have an obligation to ensure that they have subject matter jurisdiction. *See Alliance of American Insurers v. Cuomo,*854 F.2d 591, 605 (2d Cir.1988) (stating that “a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised *sua sponte*by the district court.”). The district court was correct in finding that Sharpe’s case neither presents a federal question nor comes within the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Sharpe argues that his case presents a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This claim was not presented below and, therefore, is waived. *See Singleton v. Wulff,*428 U.S. 106, 120-21, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). In any event, Sharpe’s complaint fails to allege that he was deprived of a constitutional right by a party acting under color of state law, a necessary element of such a claim.

We have considered Sharpe’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. We dismiss his motion to this Court for an injunction as moot. Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.