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

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA Aviation’s leadership meet with strategic partners in San Diego

By DLA Aviation Public AffairsDLA Aviation Public Affairs

                Richmond, Virginia  –              
Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Deputy Commander Charlie Lilli and Acquisition Executive Cathy Contreras conducted a site visit, Jan. 25-26, to DLA Aviation at San Diego on Fleet Readiness Center Southwest, Naval Air Station, North Island, California, to engage with local leadership and strategic supplier partners to discuss retail performance metrics.

They also met with Northrup Grumman and Parker Hannifin leaders on support for the E-2C Hawkeye and the C-2A Greyhound aircrafts’ landing gear material. 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Strategic EngagementWarfighter FirstDLA Aviation
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
E DM UNDO E V AN-SANG UINO , Pe titione r,
v. L O RE T T A E . L YNCH , Attor ne y G e ne r al, R

e sponde n t . No. 09-72980 Age n c y No. A078-739-220
M E M O RANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 5, 2015 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : K O Z INSKI , B E RZ O N and W AT FO RD , C irc uit Judge s. 1. This c a se is RE M A NDE D to the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls for furthe r proc e e dings in light of C orre o-R uiz v. Ly nc h, 809 F.3d 543 (9th C ir. 2015). The B oa rd sha ll gra

nt Pe titione r an opportunity to supple m e nt the re c ord. 

# F IL ED F EB 11 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.pa ge 2

2. W e re je c t Eva n-Sanguino’ s a

rgum e n t tha

t the B oa rd de nie d re lie f in de rogation of thela

wof the c a s e . Se e M e rritt v. M a c ke y , 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th C ir. 1991) (e xpla ining the la w-of-the -c a se doc t

rine and disc ussing its disc re tiona

ry nature ). The re wa s no la w of the c a se be c a

u s e ne ithe r our re m and orde r nor the first B oa

rd de c ision de finitive l y e sta blishe d tha

t Eva n-San guino wa s e ntitle d to re l ie f.
3. W e a lso re

je c t Eva n-Sanguino’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the B oa rd de prive d him

of due proc e ss by

de c iding his a

p pe a l ba se d on the inte rve ning a uthority of M a tte r of B rione s, 24 I. & N. De c . 355 (B IA 2007), without a llowing him

to brie f the im plic a t ions of tha

t c a se . Eve n if the re we re a proc e d ura l proble m , Eva

n-Sanguino
c annot m ake the re quire d showing of pre judic e . Se e Unite d State s v. C e rda -Pe na , 799 F.2d 1374, 1378–79 (9th C ir. 1986). Eva n-Sanguino c om

p la i ns tha t he wa s ne ve r a fforde d a

n opportunity

to a rgue tha t B rione s should not a

pply re troa c tive ly in his c a se . Eva

n-Sanguino will ha

ve an opportunity

to m ake tha

t a rgum e nt on
re m and.
Pe tition for re vie w G RANT E D. RE M ANDE D with instruc tions.
No. 49475.

#### Protests 99020-K, etc., of Theo. L. Stern & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**Exhibit** **23.2**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE**

 

Board of Directors and Shareholders

Mannatech, Incorporated

Coppell, Texas

The audits referred to in our report dated March 11, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Mannatech, Incorporated and subsidiaries (the Company), which is contained in Item 15(a)(1) of  this Form 10-K also included the audit of the financial statement schedule listed in Item 15(a)(2) of this Form 10-K.  The financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audit.

In our opinion such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

 

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

Dallas, Texas

March 11, 2009
#### Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6134.

Invoices dated London, England, January 2, 1942, etc.

Certified January 8, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 25, 1942, etc.

Entry No. 740197, etc.

(Decided April 24, 1945)

*John D. Rode (Jacob L. Klingaman*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A,, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation-of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the issues in these appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in the annexed schedule, except so far as they relate to tobacco, are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *United States*v. *Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc.,*Suit 4481, C. A. D. 305, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise here involved, less the addition made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the cost of materials, and fabrication, manipulation or other process employed in manufacturing or producing such or similar merchandise at a time preceding the date of exportation of the involved merchandise which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production thereof in the usual course of business, plus the usual general expenses (not less fhan 10 per centum of such cost) in the case of such or similar merchandise, plus the cost of all containers and coverings, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, and plus an addition for profit (not less.than 8 per centum of the costs of materials and fabrication or manipulation and general expenses) equal to the profit which ordinarily is added to the cost of merchandise of the same general character by manufacturers or producers in the country of manufacture who are engaged in the manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind.

> *405It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted on foregoing stipulation.

> 

> Appeals abandoned so far as they relate to tobacco.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper, basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, excepting the tobacco, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to tobacco, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
----

**EXHIBIT 12.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, F. John Norman, certify that: 

 1.               I  have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Pacific Rim Mining Corp. (the  “Company”); 

 2.               Based  on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report; 

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

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

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

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

 c)               Disclosed  in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial  reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter  (the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)  that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,  the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

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

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

 b)               Any  fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees  who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial  reporting.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                            WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT, INC.

                           UNITED STATES SUBSIDIARIES

WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT, INC.
owns 100% of the outstanding stock or membership interests of the following:

         DirectPro LLC, a New York limited liability company
         Freedom Graphic Services, Inc., a New Jersey corporation
         iGetSmart.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation
         Premier Graphics, Inc., a South Carolina corporation
         SFI of Delaware, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
         United Envelope, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
         Workflow Direct, Inc., a California corporation
         Workflow Management Acquisition Corp., a New Jersey corporation
         Workflow Management Acquisition II Corp., a Delaware corporation
         WFMI, Inc., a Delaware corporation

SFI OF DELAWARE, LLC
owns 100% of the outstanding stock of the following:

         SFI of Puerto Rico, Inc., a Delaware corporation
         SFI of Illinois, Inc., a Delaware corporation
         OEI Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation

UNITED ENVELOPE, LLC
owns 100% of the outstanding stock of the following:

         Pocono Envelope Corp., a Pennsylvania corporation

WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT ACQUISITION CORP.
owns 100% of the outstanding stock of the following:

         Universal Folding Box Co., Inc., a New York corporation

WFMI, INC.
owns 100% of the outstanding stock of the following:

         Workflow of Florida, Inc., a Delaware corporation

DIRECTPRO LLC
owns 100% of the membership interest of the following:

         DirectPro West LLC, an Ohio limited liability company

WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT ACQUISITION II CORP.
owns 100% of the outstanding common stock of the following:

         WFMI, Inc., a Delaware corporation

WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT, INC.
owns 100% of the outstanding preferred stock of the following:

         WFMI, Inc., a Delaware corporation

<PAGE>

IGETSMART.COM, Inc.
owns 100% of the outstanding stock of the following:

         PSE Data Products, Inc., a California corporation
         Document Options Company, a Tennessee corporation

                              CANADIAN SUBSIDIARIES

WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT, INC.
- owns 100% of the outstanding stock of the following:

         1186202 Ontario Limited, an Ontario corporation

- owns 100% of the Class A shares of the following:

1305995 Ontario, Inc., an Ontario corporation

- owns 36.78% of the Class B, C and D shares of the following:

         Data Business Forms Limited, an Ontario corporation

1186202 ONTARIO LIMITED
owns 100% of the common stock of the following:

         1304995 Ontario, Inc., an Ontario corporation

1304995 ONTARIO, INC.
owns 63.22% of the Class B, C and D shares of the following:

         Data Business Forms Limited, an Ontario corporation

DATA BUSINESS FORMS LIMITED
owns 100% of the common stock of the following:

         iGetSmart.com Canada, Inc., a Nova Scotia LLC

IGETSMART.COM, INC.
Owns 1 common share of the common stock of the following:

         iGetSmart.com Canada, Inc., a Nova Scotia LLC
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 241 (Monday, December 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 76108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29937]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, December 18, 2013, 10 a.m.-12 p.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: Briefing Matter: Bedside Sleepers (Section 
104)--Final Rule.
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/live.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: December 12, 2013.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29937 Filed 12-12-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
(V. D. 73)

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 89291.

(Decided April 9, 1958)

*Eugene B. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Boub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *634
      *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States,*39 Cust. Cfc. 342, Abstract 60977. The conclusion therein, and the judgment issued pursuant thereto, was to the effect that the protest had been prematurely filed and the matter was remanded to a single judge in reappraisement to determine the proper dutiable values in the manner provided by law. (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d).)

A stipulation of submission, upon which the matter is now before me, establishes export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the microscopes and wooden cases in question, and that such statutory value, which I hold to be the proper dutiable value for each class of articles, is as follows:

> Invoice U. S.

> price Less dollars Merchandise each discount per each

> 8 Ortholux Microscopes EEVIB. $634. 88 25% $476. 16

> 8 wooden cases_ 19. 20 25% 14.40

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

      ( print page 27311)    
Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel—Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR part 515). 

Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. 

## Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicants 

Scotia Ocean Services, LTD, 15550 Vickery Drive, Suite 100, Houston, TX 77032, Michael K. McGovern, Sole Proprietor. 

                    Caribbean Ocean Corp. (JA), 8005 NW 80th Street, Unit 4, Miami, FL 33167.                     *Officers:*                     Hugh Osborne, Vice President. (Qualifying Individual), Dean Osborne, President.                 

                    Total Forwarding LLC dba Norse Ocean Lines, dba Total Forwarding, 130 Grandview Trace, Fayetteville, GA 30215.                     *Officer:*                     Johnny S. Flaten, Director (Qualifying Individual).                 

                    Aarid Enterprise Corp., 1340 Chesapeake Ave., Baltimore, MD 21226.                     *Officers:*                     William Donald Dailey, President, Anita Lynn Knapp, Vice President, Betty Lee Lewis, Secretary (Qualifying Individuals).                 

Dated: May 10, 2007. 

Bryant L. VanBrakle, 

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E7-9330 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
**Exhibit 12.1**

----

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Thomas Henry Glocer, certify  that:

1. I have reviewed this amendment  to the annual report on Form 20-F of Reuters Group PLC; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this  amendment 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 amendment; and

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

Dated: 30 June 2005

|        | By /s/ | Thomas H Glocer |
|--------|--------|-----------------|
|   |   |                 |
|        |        |                 |
|        |        | Thomas H Glocer |
|        |        | Chief Executive |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-4042

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL THOMAS POTTS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CR-98-50)

Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: February 15, 2000

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Lisa B.

Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Thomas Potts appeals his conviction for possession

with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1) (1994). On appeal, Potts contends that his due process

rights were offended because he did not receive “actual” notice of

the Government’s intent to seek enhanced penalties under 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(B) (1994). See 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) (1994). Our review of the record and the proceedings before the district court

reveals no reversible error with respect to Potts’ notice of and

opportunity to be heard regarding the possibility of an enhanced

sentence as a result of his recidivism. See Oyler v. Boles, 368

U.S. 448, 452 (1962); United States v. Belanger, 970 F.2d 416, 418

(7th Cir. 1992). In addition, we can discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court with respect to the admission of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence tending to prove that Potts

possessed crack cocaine with the requisite intent to distribute.

See United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1464-65 (4th Cir. 1995).

Finding no merit to either of Potts’ contentions on appeal, we

affirm the conviction and sentence. 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