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

# Distribution’s Chrisman presented commander’s coin

By Brianne M. BenderDLA Distribution Command Affairs

                NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa.  –              
Current Operations employee, Dawn Chrisman, received a commander’s coin during DLA Distribution Commanding Officer Navy Rear Adm. Kevin M. Jones’ employee recognition event Feb. 26.

Chrisman received this recognition not only for her efforts with the organization’s serialization initiative but most importantly for her efforts in developing the guidance issued via a fragmentary order for the Program Executive Office (PEO) routing identifier code for non-serialized national stock numbers transferred from the Life-Cycle Management Command Army Working Capital Fund account to the Army’s PEO general fund accounts. 

“The guidance needed to be well-defined in order to ensure use of specific RIC that will align correct funding sources to the proper PEO/property manager item inventory,” said Joe Cassel, Current Operations Director.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLADLA Distributionawards
# C_2012209EN.01001202.xml

| 14.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/12

---

Action brought on 14 May 2012 — Hübner v OHIM — Silesia Gerhard Hanke (Original silicea Kieselsäure-Gel)

(Case T-211/12)

2012/C 209/21

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Anton Hübner GmbH & Co. KG (Ehrenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Kirchgäßner, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Silesia Gerhard Hanke GmbH & Co. KG (Neuss, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Amend the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 351/2011-1 as follows: The decision of the Opposition Division is annulled to the extent to which it has been the subject of the appeal, and the opposition is rejected in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Amend the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 351/2011-1 as follows: The decision of the Opposition Division is annulled to the extent to which it has been the subject of the appeal, and the opposition is rejected in its entirety;

| — | Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred during the appeal procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred during the appeal procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Anton Hübner GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Original silicea Kieselsäure-Gel’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 — application No 8 178 576

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Silesia Gerhard Hanke GmbH & Co. KG

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘Silesia’ for goods in Classes 2, 3, 5, 29, 30, 32 and 33

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2349

JOHN B. SHELTON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES POST OFFICE; EMPLOYEE ONE/JOHN DOE I; EMPLOYEE 

TWO/JOHN DOE II, Supervisor, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief 

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00399-JRS) 

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 2, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

John B. Shelton, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 John B. Shelton appeals the district court’s orders 

dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to the Federal Tort 

Claims Act and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau 

of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and denying his motion for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Shelton v. United States Post Office, 

No. 3:08-cv-00399-JRS (E.D. Va. Oct. 17, 2008 & Oct. 30, 2008). 

We deny as moot Shelton’s motion for a ten-day stay of this 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1742 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit fraudulently representing 

a product to be maple syrup. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 20, 2011 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. 

SANDERS, and Ms. SNOWE) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 

fraudulently representing a product to be maple syrup. 

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 ‘‘Maple Agriculture Pro5 tection and Law Enforcement Act of 2011’’ or the 

6 ‘‘MAPLE Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1742 IS

1 SEC. 2. FRAUDULENTLY REPRESENTING A PRODUCT AS 

2 MAPLE SYRUP. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 47 of title 18, United 

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘§ 1041. Fraudulently representing a product as 

7 maple syrup 

8 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘maple 

9 syrup’ means a liquid food— 

10 ‘‘(1) derived by— 

11 ‘‘(A) concentration and heat treatment of 

12 the sap of a species of tree in the genus Acer 

13 (commonly known as ‘maple trees’); or 

14 ‘‘(B) solution in water of maple sugar 

15 (commonly know as ‘maple concrete’) made 

16 from the sap of a species of tree in the genus 

17 Acer; 

18 ‘‘(2) that is not less than 66 percent by weight 

19 of soluble solids derived solely from the sap of a spe20 cies of tree in the genus Acer; and 

21 ‘‘(3) the concentration of which may be ad22 justed by adding water. 

23 ‘‘(b) OFFENSE.— 

24 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para25 graph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to 

26 knowingly and willfully introduce or deliver for introVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:41 Oct 22, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1742.IS S1742

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1742 IS

1 duction into interstate commerce a product that is 

2 labeled as maple syrup and that is not maple syrup. 

3 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not 

4 apply to a product labeled as maple syrup that is not 

5 maple syrup if the label also includes a clear identi6 fication of the true nature of the product. 

7 ‘‘(c) PENALTY.—Any person that violates subsection 

8 (b) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more 

9 than 5 years, or both.’’. 

10 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

11 The table of sections for chapter 47 of title 18, United 

12 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol13 lowing: 

‘‘1041. Fraudulently representing a product as maple syrup.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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

# Dana Cochrane retires after 30 years of federal service

By Notasha FantDLA Land and Maritime People and Culture

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Culture L&MDLA L&MCommunity L&M
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00346-CR

No. 10-13-00347-CR

No. 10-13-00348-CR

No. 10-13-00349-CR

No. 10-13-00350-CR

No. 10-13-00351-CR

No. 10-13-00352-CR

No. 10-13-00353-CR

MILTON LEE GARDNER,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the Mexia Municipal Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 112618, 112619, 130068, 130979, 

131012, 131018, 131019, and 131162

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Milton Lee Gardner filed notices of appeal with this Court on October 4, 2013 

regarding eight separate traffic offenses to which he pled guilty in the municipal court 
Gardner v. State Page 2

in July of 2013. Even if this Court had jurisdiction of direct appeals of traffic offenses, 

which we do not, see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 4.03; 45.042(a) (West 2006 & 

Supp. 2012) (generally, appeals from a justice or municipal court are to the county court, 

not the court of appeals), we have no jurisdiction because Gardner’s notices of appeal 

are untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1996) (no jurisdiction where the notice of appeal is untimely). 

Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.1 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeals dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 17, 2013

Do not publish 

[CR25]

 

1 A motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the judgment or order of this Court is 

rendered. TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. If the appellant desires to have the decision of this Court reviewed by the 

Court of Criminal Appeals, a petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal 

Appeals within 30 days after either the day the Court of Appeals’ judgment was rendered or the day the 

last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by the Court of Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a).
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Edward A. Keible, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of Endwave Corporation (the Company), and Julianne M. Biagini, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of their
knowledge:



1.The Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



2.The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 15 day of May, 2003.



|/s/    EDWARD A. KEIBLE,
JREdward A. Keible, Jr. Chief Executive Officer |  | /s/    JULIANNE M. BIAGINIJulianne M. Biagini Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2012343EN.01002402.xml

| 10.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/24

---

Action brought on 18 September 2012 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-99/12)

2012/C 343/42

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, A. Blot, avocats)

Applicant:

Defendant: Committee of the Regions

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Committee of the Regions rejecting the applicant’s request that the calculation of his pension rights not be made under the new GIP.

Forms of order sought

Forms of order sought

| — | by way of principal claim, annul the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 1 December 2011 rejecting the applicant’s request of 13 July 2011, as completed on 16 August 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

by way of principal claim, annul the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 1 December 2011 rejecting the applicant’s request of 13 July 2011, as completed on 16 August 2011;

| — | so far as necessary, annul the decision dated 8 June 2012 expressly rejecting the applicant’s claim dated 10 February 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as necessary, annul the decision dated 8 June 2012 expressly rejecting the applicant’s claim dated 10 February 2012;

| — | in the alternative, recognise the non-pecuniary loss suffered and order the defendant to pay the amount of EUR 20 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, recognise the non-pecuniary loss suffered and order the defendant to pay the amount of EUR 20 000;

| — | order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.

---
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 29,460 9 KEITH RUSSELL JUDD, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 12 Neil C. Candelaria, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 17 Nancy M. Hewitt, Assist ant Appellate Defender 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 VIGIL, Judge. 222 Defendant appeals the district court denial of his motion to vacate a 1 dismissal of charges. Defendant urged the district court to make the dismissal with 2 prejudice 33 rather than without prejudice. We proposed to dismiss the appeal on the grounds 1 that Defendant was not aggrieved by the order. Defendant has timely responded. 2 We have considered his arguments and not being persuaded, we dismiss the appeal. 3 Defendant argues that this Court is incorrect in proposing to conclude that he 4 is not an aggrieved party. He argues that a dismissal with prejudice is very 5 different from a dismissal without prejudice. We agree. However, as we pointed 6 out in our notice, charging decisions are the sole province of the prosecutor. See 7 State v. Gonzales , 2002-NMCA-071, ¶ 18, 132 N.M. 420, 49 P.3d 681 (discussing 8 the duty of the district attorney regarding charging decisions and the broad 9 discretion given to the district attorney in those matters). 10 Further, as recognized by Defendant , any further prosecution on these 11 charges is time-barred. See NMSA 1978, § 30-1-8(C) (2009) (stating time limit for 12 commencing prosecution of misdemeanor). In all practicality because the charges 13 were not reinstated within the statute of limitations, Defendant is not aggrieved by 14 the district court order denying his motion. 15 For the reasons stated herein and inthe notice of proposed disposition, we 16 dismiss the appeal. 174 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

2 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4

5 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 6

7 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 8
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



Board of Directors
Clover Community Bankshares, Inc.

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in Clover  Community
Bankshares, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-71777),  relating
to the  registration  of up to 50,000  shares of its common  stock for  issuance
pursuant to the Clover Community Bankshares, Inc. Dividend Reinvestment Plan, of
our report  dated  January  22,  1999,  which is  included  in Clover  Community
Bankshares,  Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
1998.





                        Donald G. Jones and Company, P.A.


Columbia, South Carolina
March 19, 1999
#### In the Matter of Lupe McCann, Petitioner, v H. Carl McCall, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.

[699 NYS2d 782]

—Mercure, J. P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for ordinary disability retirement benefit.

Petitioner, who was employed as a community mental health nurse, stopped working in May 1995 and filed an application for disability retirement benefits based upon her Parkinson’s disease, which was originally diagnosed in 1990. After her application was disapproved on the ground that she is not permanently incapacitated for the performance of her duties, petitioner sought a hearing and redetermination. Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, respondent found that petitioner is not permanently incapacitated for the performance of her duties and denied her application. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review respondent’s determination.

There is substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination. Chandra Sharma, a board-certified neurologist, examined petitioner and testified on behalf of the State and Local Employees’ Retirement System. Finding no clinical signs of Parkinson’s disease, Sharma concluded that petitioner’s complaints were attributable mainly to depression, which is treatable, and that petitioner was not incapacitated from the performance of her duties. Although Sharma’s December 1995 report acknowledges that petitioner may have a mild degree of Parkinson’s disease, the report concludes that in the absence of any clinical signs of the disease, petitioner’s main problem is depression and she is able to continue her usual occupation. The contrary testimony of petitioner’s medical expert created a credibility issue for respondent to resolve (see, *Matter of Mayo v McCall,*253 AD2d 977).

Petitioner contends that respondent’s reliance on Sharma’s opinion is irrational because the single, brief examination conducted by him was insufficient in light of the changeable nature of Parkinson’s disease and the medication taken by petitioner. The record establishes, however, that Sharma acknowledged both the changeable nature of the disease and the “masking” effect of medication, but was of the opinion that the absence of any clinical signs during his examination established that petitioner did not suffer from Parkinson’s dis*767ease or that she had such a mild degree of the disease that it did not incapacitate her from performing her job. Petitioner also claims that Sharma misapprehended the exact nature of petitioner’s job, but any such misapprehension was resolved by the hypothetical question posed at the hearing by counsel for the Retirement System. We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments regarding evidentiary rulings at the hearing and find them insufficient to warrant judicial intervention. The determination is, therefore, confirmed.

Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.