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

# Self-Defense Class with Christie Ratcliff

By Christie RatcliffDLA Land and Maritime People and Culture Directorate

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
Please join us for a Krav Maga-based self-defense class on Wednesday, Aug. 23 from 11 a.m. to noon in the Cardinal Room with Q&A afterwards.   

This will be part of the kick-off week for the four pillars of Resiliency (associates may access the poster on the directory at Q:\People and Culture Directorate\C_External\Resiliency poster Agenda 2017.pptx.)  

We will discuss and go over options for real-world attacks and what you can do to overcome them to go home safe.

Our special guest will be Ken Rundell, firefighter from Truro Twp, SWAT trainer and black belt in Krav Maga.
Please call 614-692-8828 with any questions.
 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA L&MResiliency L&MCulture L&MSafety L&M
UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Adam N. MONTGOMERY

Chief Electronics Technician

(Nuclear Power) (E-7)

U.S. Navy

Appellant

NMCCA NO. 202100342

Panel 2

ORDER

Granting Appellant’s Motion

to Withdraw Case from

Appellate Review

Upon consideration of Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw Case from Appellate 

Review, filed on 11 March 2022, we have determined that Appellant’s request 

was properly executed and submitted, and is in substantial compliance with 

Article 61, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 861, and Rule for 

Courts-Martial 1115.

Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 14th day of March 2022,

ORDERED:

(1) That Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw Appellate Review is GRANTED.

(2) That the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General for 

appropriate disposition. 

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

Copy to:

45 (LT Beach)

46

02
Case No. 8,691.

#### M’CLEAN v. FOWLE.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 118.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1816.

Libel — Illegal Voting — Declaration — Proper Averments.

A declaration for a libel charging the plaintiff with an attempt to put two votes iiito the ballot-box at a corporate election, must contain an averment of the by-law under which the election was held.

Action upon the case for a libel charging that a neighbor of the printers had been detected in an attempt to put two votes into tbe ballot-box, and that "the name and the proof are left with the printer.” Verdict for the plaintiff, $271.75.

Mr. Swann, for defendant,

moved in arrest of judgment, and contended, that the publication contained no libellous matter, no reflection on the plaintiff’s moral character, no charge of turpitude, nor does it set forth the election law so as to make it appear that the plaintiff had not a right to put in two votes. This cannot be aided by innuendo. Holt v. Scholefield, 6 Term R. 691. The court cannot judicially notice a by-law not pleaded. 6 Bac. Abr. 375; Rex v. Horne, Cowp. 683; 2 Ohit PI. 256; ISaund. 243; 9 Bac. Abr. “Slander,” 2. There is nothing in the libel to designate the plaintiff as the object of it; and this cannot be aided by innuendo. 4 Coke, 17 b. And the averment in the declaration, that the libel was written of and concerning the plaintiff, does not authorize him to prove by evidence debors tbe libel, that the plaintiff was the person meant.

Mr. Mason and E. J. Lee, for plaintiff,

contended that the whole tenor of the libel showed that it meant to charge the plaintiff with an illegal act, an act of turpitude; and this is sufficient to maintain the action. J’Anson v. Stuart, 1 Term R. 748; Bell v. Stone, 1 Bos. & P. 331; Savile v. Jardine, 2 H. Bl. 531; 5 Coke, 125; King v. Lake, Hardr. 470; King v. Philipps, 6 East, 471.

*1267THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent,)

took time to consider, and an'ested tbe judgment for want of an averment of tlie by-law respecting the election.
September 21, 1949

No. 7741.

#### *T. W. Holt & Co.*v. *United States.*

Entered at Tampa, Fla. Reap. Dec. 7714. Motion by appellant.
Case No. 8,678.

#### McCANDLESS v. McCORD.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 533.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March Term, 1835.

Judgment — Motion to Set Aside — Joint Defendants — Capias—Non Est as to One-Renewal.

In a joint action against two defendants, after judgment confessed by one of the defendants, it is too late for him to move to set aside the judgment because the capias ad respondendum was not renewed and regularly returned non est ini entus, at every term until the trial term of the case against the defendant taken. The practice in such cases is unsettled.

[See Nieholls v. Fearson, Case No. 10,226.]

This was a motion by Mr. Key, for defendant, to quash the ea. sa. against Mc-Cord, and to set aside the judgment, which had been confessed by him, saving his equity. The original capias ad responden-dum was against McCord and Salady. Mc-Cord was taken but Salady was returned non est; and the writ was not renewed against him; nor does the declaration state that the first writ was returned non est as to him. Upon examination of the records of this court, it appeared that the practice was unsettled. Of 117 cases, from 1801 to 1814, in 56 cases the writ was not renewed against the absent defendant; and in 61 it was renewed.

Mr. Key, for defendant,

cited the case of Nieholls v. Fearson [Case No. 10,226], in this court at December term, 1824, in which the court decided, (nem. con.) “that the capias must be continued by alias and plu-ries up to the trial court,” and that for want of such continuance the cause was discontinued, and ordered to be stricken off the docket; but, at the suggestion of Mr. Key, that in Harris’s Entries one non est only is mentioned, the court agreed to hear a motion to reinstate the cause, if Mr. Key should think he could sustain the motion, but nothing further appears to have been said upon that point; the cause, however, was afterwards tried and was carried to the supreme court upon a question of usury. [7 Pet (32 U. S.) 103.]

Mr. Redin, for plaintiff,

contra,, contended that after a confession oí judgment by the defendant taken, it is too late for him to object to the want of a renewal of the capias ad respondendum, against the other defendant.

And of' that opinion was THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent), and the motion to set aside the judgment was overruled.
No. 74-5947.

#### Thomas *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 54318.

#### Fries Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 152912-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of eucalyptus oil the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *United States*v. *Fries Bros., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 36, C. A. D. 416), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 56718.

protest 177587-K (New York).

#### W. W. White, Esso Export Corp. and Overton & Co. *v.*United States,

*494Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of paper-covered periodicals issued within 6 months prior to the time of entry and that they are devoted to current literature of the day, are issued regularly at stated periods, and bear the date of issue, the same in all material respects as the periodicals involved in Abstract 56077, the claim for free entry under paragraph 1726 was sustained.
Exhibit 32.02



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Allen D. Goodman, Chief Financial and Principal Accounting Officer of Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., the
general partner of Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (the Partnership), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Allen D. GoodmanAllen D. GoodmanChief Financial and Principal Accounting OfficerAugust 16, 2004




E-5
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1488 

To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds for abortions, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2011 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds for abortions, 

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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hyde Amendment 

5 Codification Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING FEDERALLY FUNDED ABORTIONS. 

7 Title 1 of the United States Code is amended by add8 ing at the end the following new chapter: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1488 IS

1 ‘‘CHAPTER 4—PROHIBITING FEDERALLY 

2 FUNDED ABORTIONS 

3 ‘‘SEC. 301. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS. 

4 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No funds authorized or appro5 priated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust 

6 fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by 

7 Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion. 

8 ‘‘(b) HEALTH BENEFITS COVERAGE.—No funds au9 thorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the 

10 funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or 

11 appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for health 

12 benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. 

13 ‘‘SEC. 302. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, 

14 INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE 

15 MOTHER. 

16 ‘‘The limitations established in sections 301 shall not 

17 apply to an abortion— 

18 ‘‘(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of 

19 rape or incest; or 

20 ‘‘(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a 

21 physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, 

22 including a life-endangering physical condition 

23 caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that 

24 would, as certified by a physician, place the woman 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 1488 IS

1 in danger of death unless an abortion is per2 formed.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERGIO RUBEN GARCIA

- CHAVIRA,

Petitioner,

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent. No. 16

- 70508

Agency No. A097

- 422

- 245

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 13, 2018 **

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Ruben Garcia

- Chavira, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.

* 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

MAR 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 70508

Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791

- 92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part

and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Contrary to Garcia

- Chavira’s contention, the BIA used the proper “future

oriented” standard in determining that he failed to show excep tional and extremely

unusual hardship to a qualifying relative

. S ee Figueroa v. Mukasey , 543 F.3d 487,

497

- 98 (9th Cir. 2008) (agency must conduct a “future

- oriented analysis” in
determining whether “removal would result in an exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship ” to qualifying relatives (emphasis in original) )

. We otherwise
lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary hardship determination. See

Vilchiz

- Soto v. Holder , 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable leg al
or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s
discretionary hardship determination)

. Because the BIA conducted a de novo review of the hardship determination,

we do not consider Garcia

- Chavira ’s challenges to the IJ’s hardship determination.

See Romero

- Ruiz v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Where the
BIA conducts an independent review of the IJ’s findings, we review the BIA’s
decision and not that of the IJ.”)

.
PETITION FOR RE VIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
EXHIBIT 99.1

# SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2002, I, Kevin M. Goodwin, Chief Executive Officer of SonoSite, Inc.,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) |  | such
Annual Report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002, fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) |  | the
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2002, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of SonoSite, Inc.
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | /s/ Kevin M. Goodwin

Kevin M. GoodwinPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 28, 2003
#### William Russell HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 96-05318, 97-00390.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 5, 1999.

*444PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal, William Russell Hill challenges the jury conviction and sentence imposed after he withdrew from a plea agreement. Additionally, he challenges a trial court order’s denying his posttrial motions for a hearing to contest the reasonableness of attorney’s fees and costs and for appointment of counsel. We affirm the conviction and sentence imposed without further discussion. However, the final judgment as to attorney’s fees and costs is reversed.

On December 13, 1996, the trial court entered a final judgment assessing a total of $78,289.63 in fees and costs for a special appointed public defender. The final judgment specifically stated that Hill could request a hearing on the reasonableness of attorney’s fees and costs. Hill timely filed motions for a hearing and for appointment of counsel to represent him during the hearing on fees and costs. On January 9, 1997, the trial court summarily denied the motions.

Pursuant to section 27.56(7), Florida Statutes (1995),1 a defendant shall have the opportunity to be heard to offer objection to a determination of attorney’s fees and costs of a special appointed public defender. *See also*Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.720(d). A defendant has the right to be represented at such a hearing, but does not have the right to court-appointed counsel. *See Bull v. State,*548 So.2d 1103, 1105 (Fla.1989). Thus, we affirm the order denying the appointment of counsel and reverse the judgment for attorney’s fees and costs. On remand the trial court shall conduct a hearing on the reasonableness of attorney’s fees and costs after notice to Hill.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and GREEN and SALCINES, JJ., Concur. •

1

. Section 27.56(7), Florida Statutes (1995) had been renumbered as section 938.29(6), Florida Statutes (1997).
No. 47649.

#### Protest 46357-K of Montgomery Ward & Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following Abstract 46702 the claim at 30 percent under paragraph 911 (b) was sustained.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Night Work for Women in Hotels and Restaurants

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*Night Work for Women in Hotels and Restaurants : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 233*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1949,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5506,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 8, 2018

No. 04-18-00476-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.S.G. AND J.G.,

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA00010

Honorable Solomon Casseb III, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant’s Brief is hereby GRANTED. 

Time is extended to October 16, 2018.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
### Development of underground waters in the western coastal plain region of southern California

By: Walter Curran Mendenhall

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp139

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.