alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.88 MB)
 
 1/7 Coalition forces 7TH MARINES cjtf-oir A&A Middle East Al Asad air base building partner capacity spmagtfcrcc Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve Advise and assist Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force-Crisis Response-Central Command Al Anbar province USCENTCOM Iraq 1st Battalion Deployed Security Forces MARINE CORPS MARINES deployment
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
_____________

No. 95-3260WM

_____________

Dennis Lee Etter, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

Submitted: May 15, 1996

 Filed: June 4, 1996

_____________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Dennis Lee Etter appeals the district court's denial of Etter's 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Etter contends his sentencing counsel was

ineffective because counsel failed to object to the classification of the

methamphetamine as d-methamphetamine, to the inclusion in the base offense

level calculation of the amount of methamphetamine distributed before

Etter's involvement in the conspiracy, and to the lack of a recommendation

in the presentence report for a mitigating-role reduction. Because Etter

waived these contentions by virtue of the stipulations in his written plea

agreement, we conclude counsel's failure to raise the objections Etter

purportedly asked him to raise could not have prejudiced Etter.

Specifically, Etter stipulated he was accountable for the amount of

methamphetamine attributed to him, and that he was not entitled to a

mitigating-role adjustment. Etter also agreed to a base offense level

derived from treating the substance involved as
-2-

d-methamphetamine. We thus affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 10.3


                 JOURNAL REGISTER COMPANY MANAGEMENT BONUS PLAN

      The  purpose of the Plan is to  recognize  the prior  services  of certain
management employees (collectively, the "Employees") of Journal Register Company
(the "Company") and such  employees'  contributions  to the Company's  financial
performance and growth.

      The Employees whose names and addresses are set forth on Schedule A hereto
shall be awarded, subject to the pricing of the Company's currently contemplated
initial public  offering,  the number of shares of common stock,  par value $.01
per share of the Company (the "Common Stock"),  and the amount of cash,  subject
to applicable withholdings, in each case set forth opposite his or her name. The
Board of Directors of the Company may, in its sole discretion and subject to the
pricing of the Company's currently  contemplated initial public offering,  grant
to  Employees  whose names are not set forth on Schedule A hereto such number of
shares  of  Common  Stock  and  such  amount  of  cash,  subject  to  applicable
withholdings, as the Board in each case determines appropriate.  Notwithstanding
the  foregoing,  in no event  shall (i) the  number  of  shares of Common  Stock
awarded  pursuant to this Plan exceed  1,100,000 in the  aggregate  and (ii) the
amount of cash  awarded  pursuant  to this Plan exceed an amount  equal,  in the
aggregate,  to 82% of the total value, as of the date of award, of the number of
shares of Common Stock awarded hereinunder.

     The Company  has  covenanted to  file  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  a  Registration  Statement  under  the  Securities  Act of 1933,  as
amended,  with respect to such shares of Common Stock. No shares of Common Stock
awarded  under this Plan shall be issued to the  recipients  thereof  until such
Registration Statement has become effective.


<PAGE>


                                   SCHEDULE A



          NAME AND ADDRESS                COMMON STOCK             CASH
          ----------------                ------------             ----    

Robert M. Jelenic
16 Sleepy Hollow Lane
Princeton Junction, NJ  08550.....          406,102                  *

Jean B. Clifton
6 Weatherfield Drive
Newtown, PA  18940...............           203,051                  *

Allen J. Mailman
65 West Long Drive
Lawrenceville, NJ  08648.........            46,148                  *

Trish K. Dresser
13232 Taylor Court
Lawrenceville, NJ  08648.........            46,148                  *

William J. Rush
13 Linden Shores
Branford, CT  06405..............            46,148                  *


[INFORMATION RELATING TO NON-EXECUTIVE OFFICERS EXCLUDED]


* The amount of cash is equal to forty-five fifty-fifths (45/55ths) of the total
value,  as of the date of award, of the number of shares of Common Stock awarded
to such person.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of PACCAR Financial Corp. (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned certify, pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. section 1350), that to the best of our knowledge andbelief: 

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and 

 

(2)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date   | March 4, 2005 |                           | By     |  /s/ Mark C. Pigott |   |
|--------|---------------|--------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |          | Mark C. Pigott                 |   |
|   |          | Chairman                       |   |
|   |          | PACCAR Financial Corp.         |   |
|   |          | (chief executive officer)      |   |
|   |          |                           |   |
|   |          |                           |   |
|   | By            |  /s/ Michael A. Tembreull |   |
|   |          | Michael A. Tembreull           |   |
|   |          | Vice Chairman                  |   |
|   |          | PACCAR Financial Corp.         |   |
|   |          | (chief financial officer)      |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 1, 2010

p1123 

# Order

December 1, 2010

137111 (186)

ANTHONY PELLEGRINO, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of SHIRLEY ANN PELLEGRINO, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 137111 COA: 274743 Wayne CC: 03-325462-NI AMPCO SYSTEM PARKING, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipul ation signed by counsel for release of the

award of defendant’s taxed bill of costs and withdrawal of plaintiff’s motion for review of taxation of costs is considered, and the motion for review of taxation of costs is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
#### MRS. PERCY M. HANSEN, Appellant, v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, a Railway Corporation, et al., Respondents

(233 N. W. 848.)

Opinion filed December 23, 1930.

*P.*W. *Lanier,*for appellant.

*Conmy, Young & Gonmy,*for respondents.

*255Birdzell, J.

The plaintiff brought action against the Northern Pacific Railway Company as initial carrier and a number of other railroad companies as connecting carriers to recover damages alleged to have been sustained as a passenger while on the lines of the connecting carriers. For lack of proper service the action as against the connecting carriers was dismissed. .It proceeded to trial against the Northern Pacific Railway Company alone and at the trial a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, upon which judgment was promptly entered. Thereafter the defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which motion was based upon a motion for directed verdict made at the close of the trial and all the records and files in the action, but not upon a settled statement of the case. Schumacher v. Great Northern R. Co. 23 N. D. 231, 136 N. W. 85; Kanable v. Great Northern R. Co. 45 N. D. 619, 178 N. W. 999. This motion being granted, the plaintiff appeals. The notice of appeal reads:

“Please'Take Notice: That the plaintiff herein appeals to the Supreme Court of the State of North .Dakota, from the order of the Honorable Fred Jansonius, Judge of the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District in and for said state, dated March 25th, 1930, and filed and entered on or about the 28th day of March, 1930, said order setting aside judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff and dismissing said action with prejudice; this appeal is for the purpose of having the supreme court review the action of the trial court, and a hearing-in the supreme court is demanded upon said motion to the end that the action of the trial court be reversed, and the judgment in favor of plaintiff rendered in the district court reinstated.”

The original record on appeal did not contain the order, but on suggestion of' this court the order appealed from was later certified and made a part of the record. The record contains no judgment entered pursuant to the order. The appeal must necessarily be considered as an appeal from the order for judgment. It has been repeatedly held that such an order does not fall within any classification under § 7841 of the Compiled Laws of 1913, which specifies what orders are reviewable in this court. Dibble v. Hanson, 17 N. D. 21, 114 N. W. 371, 16 Ann. Gas. 1210; Malherek v. Fargo, 49 N. D. 123, 190 N. W. *256176; Grain Growers Grain Co. v. Michigan, 52 N. D. 785, 204 N. W. 838.

The order appealed from not being an appealable order, the appeal must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

Burke, Oh. J., and Nuessle, Burr, and Christianson, JJ., concur.
Amendment to the 2001 Plan, effective as of March 2, 2004



 Exhibit 10.13 
  
 Amendment to the 
 Toys “R” Us, Inc. 2001 Stock Option and Performance Incentive Plan 
  
 The Toys “R” Us, Inc. 2001 Stock Option and Performance Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended, effective as of March 2, 2004, as follows. 
  
 1. The last sentence of Section 2.2 of the Plan, which reads as follows: 
  
 “Shares of Common Stock (i) withheld by the Company in payment of the
exercise price of options or taxes relating to awards, or (ii) surrendered to the Company in payment of the exercise price of options or taxes relating to awards, will be available for awards under the Plan.” 
  
 shall expire as of June 5, 2011, which is the day prior to the tenth anniversary of the date
that the Plan was last approved by the stockholders of the Company, and shall thereafter be replaced with the following sentence: 
  
 “Shares of Common Stock withheld by the Company in payment of the exercise price of options or in payment of taxes relating to awards (other than
Restricted Shares or other awards in which shares of Common Stock have already been issued to the participant) will be available for subsequent awards under the Plan.” 
  
 2. The following proviso shall be added at the end of the penultimate sentence of Section 2.2 of the Plan: 
  
 “provided, however, that Restricted Shares or other awards in which
shares of Common Stock have already been issued and which are subsequently converted to a cash settlement on or after June 5, 2011 shall not be available for subsequent awards under the Plan.” 
  
 3. Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as
prior to this Amendment. 
  
 The Company has caused this Amendment to be executed
as of the day and year first above written.
# Euroopa Liidu C 154/11.

| | ISSN 1725-5171 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 154 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 47. köide11. juuni 2004 |

ISSN 1725-5171

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 154

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

47. köide11. juuni 2004

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Teave |
| | Komisjon |
| 2004/C 154/1 | Euro vahetuskurss | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

I   Teave

Komisjon

2004/C 154/1

Euro vahetuskurss

1

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

I Teave

Komisjon

| 11.6.2004 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 154/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2004

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 154/1

---

Euro vahetuskurss (1)

10. juuni 2004

(2004/C 154/01)

1 euro=

| | Valuuta | Kurss |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | USA dollar | 1,2052 |
| JPY | Jaapani jeen | 131,84 |
| DKK | Taani kroon | 7,4384 |
| GBP | Inglise nael | 0,6614 |
| SEK | Rootsi kroon | 9,1475 |
| CHF | Šveitsi frank | 1,5126 |
| ISK | Islandi kroon | 87,12 |
| NOK | Norra kroon | 8,28 |
| BGN | Bulgaaria lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Küprose nael | 0,5828 |
| CZK | Tšehhi kroon | 31,33 |
| EEK | Eesti kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Ungari forint | 253,10 |
| LTL | Leedu litt | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Läti latt | 0,6536 |
| MTL | Malta liir | 0,4249 |
| PLN | Poola zlott | 4,5877 |
| ROL | Rumeenia leu | 40 865 |
| SIT | Sloveenia talaar | 239,14 |
| SKK | Slovakkia kroon | 39,87 |
| TRL | Türgi liir | 1 806 800 |
| AUD | Austraalia dollar | 1,7374 |
| CAD | Kanada dollar | 1,6381 |
| HKD | Hong Kongi dollar | 9,3975 |
| NZD | Uus-Meremaa dollar | 1,9120 |
| SGD | Singapuri dollar | 2,0637 |
| KRW | Korea won | 1 396,96 |
| ZAR | Lõuna- Aafrika rand | 8,0189 |

Valuuta

Kurss

USD

USA dollar

1,2052

JPY

Jaapani jeen

131,84

DKK

Taani kroon

7,4384

GBP

Inglise nael

0,6614

SEK

Rootsi kroon

9,1475

CHF

Šveitsi frank

1,5126

ISK

Islandi kroon

87,12

NOK

Norra kroon

8,28

BGN

Bulgaaria lev

1,9558

CYP

Küprose nael

0,5828

CZK

Tšehhi kroon

31,33

EEK

Eesti kroon

15,6466

HUF

Ungari forint

253,10

LTL

Leedu litt

3,4528

LVL

Läti latt

0,6536

MTL

Malta liir

0,4249

PLN

Poola zlott

4,5877

ROL

Rumeenia leu

40 865

SIT

Sloveenia talaar

239,14

SKK

Slovakkia kroon

39,87

TRL

Türgi liir

1 806 800

AUD

Austraalia dollar

1,7374

CAD

Kanada dollar

1,6381

HKD

Hong Kongi dollar

9,3975

NZD

Uus-Meremaa dollar

1,9120

SGD

Singapuri dollar

2,0637

KRW

Korea won

1 396,96

ZAR

Lõuna- Aafrika rand

8,0189

---

(1)

Allikas: EKP avaldatud viitekurss.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7633
JOSEPH LEE GARDNER, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus RICK JACKSON, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee, and
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:05-hc-00332-BO) Submitted: January 22, 2007 Decided: February 1, 2007 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Lee Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: Joseph Lee Gardner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gardner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
# U.S. Navy Sailor missing in the Red Sea

/ Published March 22, 2024

On the afternoon of March 20 (AST), a U.S. Navy Sailor aboard USS Mason (DDG 87) was reported missing at sea while conducting operations in the Red Sea. Search and recovery operations were conducted and have concluded.

Out of respect for the service member’s family and in accordance with DoD policy, the name of the Sailor will be withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notifications have been completed. USS Mason, deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet (C5F) area of operations, is assigned to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8; No. 2-95647 and No. 33-11486) and in the related Prospectuses
pertaining to The IT Group, Inc. 1983 Stock Incentive Plan, in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8; No. 33-52974) and in the related Prospectus pertaining to
The IT Group, Inc. 1991 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8; No. 33-60861) relating to the shares of restricted stock to be issued
under the Special Turnaround Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8;
No. 33-60881) relating to the additional shares under the 1991 Stock Incentive
Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8; No. 333-00651) relating to the
shares issued under the IT Corporation Retirement Plan, in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8; No. 333-27821) and in the related Prospectus pertaining to
the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8;
No. 333-26143 and No. 333-57065), and in the related Prospectus pertaining to
the 1997 The IT Group, Inc. Non-Employee Director Stock Plan Director Fees, of
our report dated February 15, 1999 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of The IT Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the nine months ended December 25, 1998.
 
                                          Ernst & Young LLP
 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 17, 1999
#### Ira B. Cary et al., Appellants, *v.*Robert S. Bice, Individually and as Executor of Fannie L. Bice, Deceased, Respondent.

*Cary*v. *Bice,*140 App. Div. 940, affirmed.

(Argued February 29, 1912;

decided March 19, 1912.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, *536entered November 28, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict in an action, under section 2653a of the Code of Civil Procedure, to revoke probate of the will of Fannie L. Bice, deceased.

*H. O. Sholes*for appellant.

*Thomas D. Watkins*and *George E. Dennison*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Chase and Collin, JJ.
EXHIBIT 99.2

                      TOTAL ENTERTAINMENT RESTAURANT CORP.
                      REPORT ON FORM 10Q SEPTEMBER 3, 2002

                  CERTIFICATION BY JAMES K. ZIELKE PURSUANT TO
                  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, Chief Financial Officer of Total Entertainment Restaurant
Corp. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to the best of my knowledge, that the
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 3, 2002 (the "Periodic
Report") accompanying this certification fully complies with the requirements of
the Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. The foregoing certification is incorporated solely
for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended to be used for any other purpose.


Date October 11, 2002                   /s/ James K. Zielke
     ---------------------------        ----------------------------------------
                                        James K. Zielke
                                        Chief Financial Officer,
                                        Secretary and Treasurer
From: Valerie Clement

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: support H.R. 1179

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 6:40:38 PM

Ms. Sebelius:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) fails to contain a

conscience clause that prevents Catholics and other persons of good will

from having their rights and freedoms impinged upon by the many

problematic provisions enacted under PPACA.

Pregnancy is not a disease and reasonable and robust conscience

protections should be enacted for all Americans, not just "religious

employers."

H.R. 1179, would ensure that the fundamental religious and ethical

commitments of sponsors, purchasers, and providers of health care

are protected.

The citizens of our fine nation should not be forced to cooperate in

immoral acts in order to provide for the health of their families.