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

# Logistics On Location: DLA Supports Red River Army Depot

DLA Video Productions

                RED RIVER ARMY DEPOT, Texas  –              
(View in open caption)

Vehicles of all shapes and sizes are critical to the warfighter’s readiness and the goal of the team at Red River Army Depot is to bring vehicles to mission ready status. DLA Distribution and DLA Land & Maritime work together to provide the Red River Depot with the quality parts and items they need to meet their mission. 

This story highlights a successful partnership that is critical to warfighter support. 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

## Related Stories

'Logistics on Location' video showcases Naval pharmacy in Hawaii

Logistics On Location: DLA Supports Tiger Balm

Logistics On Location: LCACs RIMPAC 2016 

DLA L&MVideo L&MRed River Army DepotLogistics on LocationDLA Distribution
No. 56722.

protests 144460-K, etc. (New York).

#### Cohn Hall Marx Co. *v.*United States,

*495Opinion by

Ford, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the involved merchandise consist of woven silk fabrics, valued at more than $5.50 per pound, the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Walter Strassburger & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 210, C. D. 1326). Accepting the stipulation as a statement of fact and following the cited authority, it was held that the merchandise imported or withdrawn from warehouse prior to January 1, 1948, is dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 1205, as modified by T. D. 48316, and that which was imported or withdrawn from warehouse subsequent to said date is dutiable at 25 percent under said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802.
No. 73-953.

#### Farr *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
34140.

#### PATTERSON v. PATTERSON.

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

Evelyn Patterson appeals from an award changing custody of two children from the mother to the father, contending the evidence was insufficient to warrant a modification of the former final custody award.

*689Submitted August 13, 1978

Decided December 5, 1978.

*James M. Barnes,*for appellant.

*Crawford McDonald,*for appellee.

We do not agree. There was reasonable evidence before the court which would authorize a change in custody. *Robinson v. Ashmore,*232 Ga. 498, 500 (207 SE2d 484) (1974); *Alexander v. Alexander,*235 Ga. 540 (221 SE2d 13) (1975).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7451

CLIFTON PAUL BRINEGAR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-98-650-WMN) Submitted: December 22, 1998 Decided: January 11, 1999 Before ERVIN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton Paul Brinegar, Appellant Pro Se. Regina Hollins Lewis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Clifton Paul Brinegar appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief and dismissing with prejudice. We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Brinegar v. Corcoran , No. CA-98-650-WMN (D. Md. Sept. 16, 1998). Although the district court determined that Appellant’s claim regarding the involuntariness of hisplea was procedurally defaulted (R. 11 at 8), we find that Appellant properly preserved the claim. (R. 8 at tab 5). Nevertheless, a review of the record shows that the claim lacks merit. See Fields v Attorney Gen of Md. , 956 F.2d 1290, 1299 (4th Cir. 1992).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
No. A-687.

#### Lovelace et al. *v.*DeChamplain.

Application for further stay of order of United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, presented to Mr. Justice Blackmun, and by him referred *986to the Court, granted pending the filing on or before April 10, 1975, of petition for writ of certiorari and final disposition thereon.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Marshall would deny the application except upon condition that respondent be released on bail.
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 10, 2015 Session

JUSTIN R. ROGERS V 

### . BLOUNT MEMORIAL

HOSPITAL, INC., ET AL 

### .

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Blount County No. L

- 18539 David R. Duggan, Judge.

No. E201 5

- 00136

- COA

- R3

- CV

- FILED

- FEBRUARY 29, 2016

D. M ICHAEL S WINEY , C. J. , concurring

. I concur fully in the majority’s decision in this case. I write separa tely only to express my opinion that the appropriate summary judgment standard to be applied by Tennessee courts now is as set forth in Rye v. Women’s Care Center of Memphis, MPLLC , ___ S.W.3d ___ , 2015 WL 6457768 (Tenn. 2015), rather than Tenn. Code Ann. § 20

- 16

- 101. I believe our Supreme Court intended for the retroactive application of Rye when it stated : “I n civil cases, judicial decisions overruling prior case s generally are applied retrospectively. ” Rye , ___ S.W.3d at ___n.9 , 2015 WL 6457768 at * 35 n.9

. While there may be very little, if any, difference between the summary judgment standard as set forth in Rye and as contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 20

- 16

- 101, I believe Rye sets the standard and is controlling on the courts of this State.

_____________________________ _______ D. MICHAEL SWINEY, CHIEF JUDGE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0 707 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JUSTIN PHILLIP HOOVER,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 12 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 2 2020

07/02/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0707
Exhibit 32

                           Section 1350 Certifications

            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of DND
Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

            To my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: August 13, 2003

                                    BY:    /s/ Douglas N. Dixon
                                       -----------------------------------
                                               DOUGLAS N. DIXON
                                          CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Dated: August 13, 2003

                                    BY:    /s/ Paul Gallo
                                       -----------------------------------
                                               PAUL GALLO
                                         CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


                                       30
No. 55552.

#### Rinaldi Bros. & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 169167-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chestnuts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Naumes Forwarding Service*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 93, C. D. 1214), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1646 was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

August 2, 1938

No. 39137.

#### Protests 520323-G, etc., of Rodak Import & Export Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, 3.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel metal; containers, tooth brush holders, tubes, jars, soap dishes, bottles, cylinders, boxes,, powders, and puff boxes chiefi'y used in the household for utilitarian purposes were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339.
Exhibit 10.46.2

AMENDMENT TO INCENTIVE AGREEMENT

The parties hereby agree to amend the certain INCENTIVE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") entered into as of January 2, 2001 (the "effective date"), by and between
Ask Jeeves, Inc. and George Lichter ("Employee"), to extend the Grant Deadline to effectuate the transfers described in Section 2.2 of the Agreement by a period of 45 days from the Grant
Deadline. The Grant Deadline is hereby extended to August 7, 2001.

|Date |  | June 18th |  | Signature  |  | /s/GEORGE LICHTER   
|---- |  | --------- |  | ---------- |  | --------------------
|     |  |           |  |            |  | George Lichter      
|     |  |           |  | Signature  |  | /s/CYNTHIA PEVEHOUSE
|     |  |           |  |            |  |                     
|     |  |           |  | Print Name |  |                     
|     |  |           |  |            |  | For Ask Jeeves, Inc.

---

QuickLinks
EX-31Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I,Anthony Sfarra, certify that:

 

1. Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required tobe filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of theWells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-C34 (the "Exchange Act periodicreports");

 

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, donot 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. Basedon my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligationsunder the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances ofnoncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report onForm 10-K.

 

Ingiving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on informationprovided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

LNRPartners, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, asTrustee, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor, CoreLogic Solutions,LLC, as Servicing Function Participant, Computershare Trust Company, NationalAssociation, as Servicing Function Participant for the CertificateAdministrator, Computershare Trust Company, National Association, as ServicingFunction Participant for the Custodian, Greystone Servicing Company LLC (assuccessor to C-III Asset Management LLC), as Special Servicer for the MarriottMonterey Mortgage Loan, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee forthe Marriott Monterey Mortgage Loan, Citibank, N.A., as Custodian for theMarriott Monterey Mortgage Loan, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as OperatingAdvisor for the Marriott Monterey Mortgage Loan, and CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, asServicing Function Participant for the Marriott Monterey Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 12, 2024

 

 

/s/Anthony Sfarra

AnthonySfarra

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE REGISTRANT INCLUDED IN ITS SECOND QUARTER REPORT TO
SHAREHOLDERS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      25,590,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              153,791,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (3,530,000)
<INVENTORY>                                120,183,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           320,597,000
<PP&E>                                     163,507,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (74,706,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             486,540,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      128,532,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   159,788,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 184,287,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               486,540,000
<SALES>                                    155,447,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           155,877,000
<CGS>                                      109,842,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              131,492,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,507,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             312,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             16,566,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,402,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,164,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,164,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.17


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner; Michael J. Goldstein, Respondent.

[709 NYS2d 859]

—Per Curiam.

Respondent who was admitted to practice by this Court in 1986, was suspended by this Court’s order dated June 7, 1999, for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of section 468-a of the Judiciary Law (262 AD2d 702).

Respondent has now complied with the registration requirements of section 468-a of the Judiciary Law and has paid the fees as required by the statute and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts. Petitioner Committee on Professional Standards does not object to respondent’s instant application for reinstatement.

Respondent’s application is granted and he is ordered reinstated, effective immediately.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted, and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 1 9

- B G

- 11 2 3

I N R E D ONALD R. H ARRIS , R ESPONDENT

.
A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 4 8 5340 )
On Report and Recommendation O f the Board on Professional Responsibility ( D DN 36 4

- 1 7 )
( Decided March 26 , 20 20 )

Before : F ISHER , T HOMPSON , and M C L EESE , Associate Judge s .

P ER C URIAM : In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility accept ed the recommend ation of Hearing Committee Four that respondent be suspended pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 13(c). In its report, the Board stated that this matter was referred to the Committee after respondent , who was previously charged in a separate disciplinary proceeding with either reckless or intentional misappropriation of entrusted funds , failed to comply with conditions imposed to2
protect the pu blic while he continued to practice law pending the conclusion of his disciplinary matter (Board Docket No. 19

- BD

- 004)

. Specifically, in response to that earlier disciplinary complaint , r espondent asserted he suffered from a disability that entitled him t o mitigation of the disciplinary sanction

. When respondent first failed to comply with the conditions, Disciplinary Counsel filed a moti on to reconsider and the Board imposed additional conditions and warn ed respondent that his failure to comply could sub ject him to the r evocation of conditions and the imposition of a suspension. R espondent again failed to comply , and the Board referred the matter to Hearing Committee Four , which determined that responde nt was non

- compliant and recommended that he be susp ended pending disposition of his original disciplinary proceedin g . In response , the Board accepted the recommend ation and requests that this court immediately suspend respondent pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 13(c).
Respondent has failed to respond to this court’s order directing him to show cause why he should not be suspended . Further, respondent previous ly acknowledged that he failed to comply with the imposed conditions that would permit him to practice law while his d isciplinary case was pending

. In light of the Board’s report, we conclude th at respondent has asserted a disability that impairs his ability to practice law but has failed to comply with conditions imposed to3
protect the public; therefore, a disability suspension pursuant to D.C. Bar R. X I § 13(c) is needed to protect the public. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Donald R. Harris is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 13(c) pending final resolution of his disciplinar y proceeding s in Board Docket No . 19

- BD

- 004. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s attention is directed to the obligations of a suspended attorney found in D. C. Bar R. XI § 14.

So ordered.
English Translation of Loan Agreement dated as of October 30, 2006



 Exhibit 10.23 
 English Translation 
 LOAN AGREEMENT 
 Party A: Zhejiang Yuhuan Solar Energy Source Co., Ltd. 
 Party B: Zhejiang
Yuhui Solar Energy Source Co., Ltd. 
 Whereas, this Loan Agreement is entered into by and between
Party A and Party B on this 30th day, October, 2006 with a total amount of RMB 10,000,000.00 (Renminbi Ten Million Yuan only), with the following terms and
conditions: 
 Party A shall advance the first installment of loan, in sum of RMB Five Million Yuan, without interest to Party B on October 30,
2006, and the term of this loan shall be two (2) months and it shall be due on December 30, 2006; 
 Party A shall advance the second installment
of loan, in sum of RMB Five Million Yuan, with monthly interest rate of 0.6%, to Party B on November 13, 2006, and the term of this loan shall be one (1) year. Party B shall repay the principal of this loan and pay the interest thereof on
the due date (unless Party A agrees to extend the term of this loan). If Party A demands Party B to repay this loan before the due date, Party B shall do so unconditionally. 
 If case of any doubt or dispute, it shall be settled by both parties through negotiations. This Agreement shall be made and executed in two (2) counterparts, one for each party hereto. 
 Party A: Zhejiang Yuhuan Solar Energy Source Co., Ltd. (Seal) 
 Party B:
Zhejiang Yuhui Solar Energy Source Co., Ltd. (Seal) 
 Date: October 30, 2006
33898.

#### BOATRIGHT v. BOATRIGHT et al.

Per curiam.

This is an appeal from the direction of a verdict for the defendants (father and son). The appellant is the former wife of the son. In 1969, while the parties were married, the husband borrowed a sum of money from the father to purchase a lot, executed a note due in 1975 and gave the father a security deed on the lot. In 1970, the divorce action was filed and granted in 1971. The husband became in arrears in support payments and a fi. fa. was entered in 1974. When the note became due in 1975, the husband executed a deed conveying the lot to his father in cancellation of the debt. The wife brought suit to set aside the conveyance on the ground it was made for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding her claim for support.

The evidence shows a bona fide transaction between the father and son prior to any marital dispute, and that the property was worth less than the debt at the time of the transfer. There was no evidence that the father had knowledge of any fraudulent intent on the part of the husband.

The trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendants. *Harrison v. Harrison,*228 Ga. 126 (184 SE2d 147) (1971).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*374Argued September 13, 1978

Decided October 17, 1978.

G. *Hughel Harrison, John F. Doran, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Webb, Fowler & Tanner, J. L. Edmondson,*for appellees.