alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# May auditorium streaming events archive

By Dana ThornburyDLA Land and Maritime

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
The video archive is CAC enabled and restricted to DLA associates.

## May 2

                              - May Post Award Working Group

## May 3

                              - V Director's Call
                              - Leadership Development
                              - FL Director's Call

## May 10

                              - Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month Program

## May 15

                              - J6 Town Hall

## May 17

                              - 2017 DLA Land and Maritime Hall of Fame Induction

## May 18

                              - DHRS-C All Hands and DMAPS
                              - Acquisition Forum

## May 23

                              - SAPD Director's Call

## May 24

                              - Certified Cost or Pricing Data Training

## 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Video L&MDLA L&MDirector's Call
#### United States *v.*Halle Bros. Co.

No. 6079.

Invoice dated Buenos Aires, Argentina, April 19, 1943.

Entered at Cleveland, Ohio, May 24, 1943.

Entry No. 604.

(Decided December 11, 1944)

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Harold L. Grossman,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

This is an appeal for a reappraisement, filed by the United States, covering the value of wool wearing apparel (cardigans) exported from Brazil on April 20, 1943. The case was submitted on a stipulation reading as follows:

> It is hereby stipulated’and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the cardigans involved herein at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of containers or coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, was $4.22 each, packing included.

> ■ It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation of the imported goods.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

In harmony with the stipulated facts, I hold that the merchandise is dutiable on the basis of export value and that the price at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of containers or coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition. packed ready for shipment to the United States, is $4.22 each, packing included.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Thomas P. Keating, certify that:

 

1.                                       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof AES Red Oak, LLC (the “registrant”);

 

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

 

3.                                       Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.                                       The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour 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 thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’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 controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)              all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date:  May 13, 2005

 
|   | /s/ Thomas P. Keating   |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Thomas P. Keating       |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Case No. 5,539.

#### GOODING v. VARN.

[Chase, 286.] *1*

Circuit Court, D. South Carolina.

June Term, 1869.

Limitations — Effect of the Civil Was — Commencement and Termination of the War in Sooth Carolina.

1. The statute of limitations was suspended as between citizens of the Confederate States and citizens of those states which adhered to the national government during the whole period of the war.

2. As far as South Carolina is concerned, the war began April 19, 1801, and ended April 1, 1866.

This was an action of assumpsit on two promissory notes. The defendant pleaded the general issue and the statute of limitations. General replication to first plea. Demurrer to second.

Ed. MeCrady, Jr., for plaintiff.

Campbell & Seabrook, for defendant-

CHASE, Circuit Justice.

The plea of the statute of limitations is good. Without entering upon the questions discussed by counsel it is sufficient to say that the state of war ■existing between the state of South Carolina and the government of the United States rendered unlawful all intercourse between ■citizens of that state and citizens of those which adhered to the national government. The latter could not sue in the courts of South Carolina; all legal remedies therefore were denied them during the war, by the war.

The period of the beginning and termination of the war varies in different states. It began with the president’s proclamation of blockade, being the first exercise of belligerent rights, April 19, 1831. It was then that the existence of civil war was first formally recognized by the national government. The end of the status of war as to South Carolina, is to be considered as being April 1, 1866, the proclamation of the president of that date having declared it terminated thenceforward.

The demurrer to the plea of limitations must therefore be overruled.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 4c

                      APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR RIGHTS AGENT
                      -------------------------------------

This Appointment of Successor Rights Agent is made and entered into as of this
10th day of June, 1997 by and among HUFFY CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation (the
"Company"), KEYBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, successor in interest to SOCIETY
NATIONAL BANK ("Keybank"), and HARRIS TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK ("Harris") under
the following circumstances:

A.       The Company and KeyBank entered into an Amended and Restated Rights
         Agreement, dated as of December 16, 1988, as amended as of August 23,
         1991, and as amended and restated as of December 9, 1994 (the "Rights
         Agreement"), pursuant to which KeyBank has performed as Rights Agent.

B.       Pursuant to Section 21 of the Rights Agreement, KeyBank has given
         notice of its resignation of Rights Agent effective upon the
         appointment of a successor Rights Agent.

C.       The Company desires to appoint Harris as successor Rights Agent.

NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree that Harris be appointed as successor
Rights Agent, as set forth below:

SECTION 1. APPOINTMENT OF AND ACCEPTANCE BY SUCCESSOR RIGHTS AGENT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

In accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Rights Agreement, the
Company hereby appoints, effective as of the date hereof, Harris as successor
Rights Agent and Harris, being in compliance with the requirements and
qualifications for a successor Rights Agent as set forth in the Rights
Agreement, as amended, hereby accepts appointment as successor Rights Agent
under the Rights Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Appointment of
Successor Rights Agent to the Rights Agreement as of the day and year set forth
above.

                                       HUFFY CORPORATION

                                       By:__________________________________

                                       Title:_______________________________

                                       KEYBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR
                                       IN INTEREST TO SOCIETY NATIONAL BANK

                                       By:__________________________________

                                       Title:_______________________________

                                       HARRIS TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK

                                       By:__________________________________

                                       Title:_______________________________
Exhibit 32.1

Certificate Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of the PBSJ Corporation (the Company) hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Dated: January 26, 2007 |  | /s/ John B. Zumwalt, III                         
|                        |  | John B. Zumwalt                                  
|                        |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer             
|                        | 
|Dated: January 26, 2007 |  | /s/ Donald J. Vrana                              
|                        |  | Donald J. Vrana                                  
|                        |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1


             Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated
(the "Company") certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that:

..    the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
     September 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

..    the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.



                                        /s/ John W. Peters
Date:   November 8, 2005                __________________________________
                                        John W. Peters
                                        Principal Executive Officer
                                        Principal Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-2191

GLENN SURBER,

Petitioner,

versus

CANNELTON INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(99-1153-BLA)

Submitted: February 28, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

S. F. Raymond Smith, RUNDLE & RUNDLE, L.C., Pineville, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Mary Rich Maloy, JACKSON & KELLY, P.L.L.C.,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Glen Surber seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of

black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986

& Supp. 2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s

decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board.

See Surber v. Cannelton Industries, Inc., BRB No. 99-1153-BLA,

(B.R.B. Aug. 9, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
No. 46952.

#### Protest 72968-K of Eitinger Bead Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with the agreed facts that the articles are similar to those the subject of *Fashion Trimming Corp.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 199, C. D. 462) they were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 1503 as claimed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CertificationPursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Inovio Biomedical Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned,in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| March 16, 2007 |   |                                              |
|---------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                |   | /s/ Avtar Dhillon                                 |
|                |   | Avtar Dhillon                                     |
|                |   | President and Chief Executive Officer             |
|                |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                |
|                |   | /s/ Peter Kies                                    |
|                |   | Peter Kies                                        |
|                |   | Chief Financial Officer                           |
|                |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
No. 42054.

#### Protest 992620-G of Moller Products Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Perseverance Import Corp.*v. *United States*(T. D. 49290) the protest was sustained.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEXTER BROWN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

SAHIR NASEER, M.D., 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-17073 

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00225-WBSCKD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Dexter Brown appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 5 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 16-17073 

2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Brown failed 

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Naseer was 

“subjectively aware” that his failure to order requested testing and his order to 

restrict Brown’s fluid intake “created a substantial risk of harm” to Brown. See id.

at 1060; see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“[A] complaint that a 

physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not 

state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment.”); 

Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (difference of opinion 

between prisoner and medical staff does not give rise to a deliberate indifference 

claim). 

We reject as unsupported by the record Brown’s contention that he alleged a 

due process claim. 

AFFIRMED.
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

MICHELLE CHOJNOWSKI, SHARON STONE, 

KATHY WITTMAN, and KENNETH WROBEL, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

UNPUBLISHED 

March 26, 2015 

v No. 317655 

Livingston Circuit Court 

HURON CLINTON METROPOLITAN 

AUTHORITY, GEORGE PHIFER, and LT. JOHN 

ORSKEY, 

LC No. 12-026839-CZ 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

Before: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and STEPHENS, JJ. 

RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J. (concurring) 

 I concur in affirming the trial court’s grants of summary disposition in favor of 

defendants. Based on my reading of the record,1 it appears that Police Chief George Phifer is 

likely a bafflingly incompetent and counterproductively over-aggressive, manager. However, he 

appears to inflict himself upon his unfortunate subordinates in a sufficiently equal-opportunity 

manner that I am unable to perceive plaintiffs as having been discriminated against on the basis 

of sex or gender or the subject of retaliation. Being, in the words of the vernacular, a colossal 

jerk is not actually unlawful per se, and being arguably unfit for a particular supervisory job does 

not necessarily constitute an actionable offense. I therefore respectfully decline to consider 

whether the specific instances of Phifer’s conduct of which plaintiffs complain constituted 

adverse employment actions within the meaning of Michigan’s Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act 

(CRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq. 

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause 

 

1

 Because the case is before us on summary disposition, at this stage of the proceedings I have no 

idea whether the conclusions I am forced to draw from the available evidence submitted are 

actually correct. This being a court of record, I may not base my conclusions on anything else.