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

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Who ya gonna call? HVAC!

By Senior Airman Kelsey Tucker51st Fighter Wing Public Affairs

                OSAN AIR BASE, Republic of Korea  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Osan Air Base website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

51st fighter wingcivil engineeringHVACHeating Ventilation and Air Conditioning51st Civil Engineer SquadronOsan Air Base
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 32.2

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Infinity  Capital Group,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Theodore
A. Greenberg, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer and Secretary of
the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

         (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
Company.

Dated: August 18, 2006


Name: Theodore A. Greenberg

/s/Theodore A. Greenberg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Position: Chief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer and Secretary


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
1 Attachment 

As requested by EPA, PPEC is providing the attached letter, which provides a level 2 visibility analysis for 

sensitive Class II areas . This letter is provided as an addition to the record supporting PPEC’s PSD permit 

application. 

 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

 

Steve Hill 

 

Pio Pico PSD Application Visibility Analysis 

Steve Hill 

to: 

Gerardo Rios, Roger Kohn, Cleveland Holladay 

03/19/2012 12:05 PM 

Cc: 

Dave Jenkins, "grchandler@apexpowergroup.com", Craig Kebodeaux, "McKinsey, John 

A.", Gary Rubenstein, "Moore, Steve" 

Hide Details 

From: Steve Hill <SHill@sierraresearch.com> Sort List... 

To: Gerardo Rios/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Roger Kohn/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Cleveland 

Holladay/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Dave Jenkins <djenkins@apexpowergroup.com>, "grchandler@apexpowergroup.com" 

<grchandler@apexpowergroup.com>, Craig Kebodeaux <Craig.Kebodeaux@kiewit.com>, 

"McKinsey, John A." <JAMCKINSEY@stoel.com>, Gary Rubenstein 

<GRubenstein@sierraresearch.com>, "Moore, Steve" <Steve.Moore@sdcounty.ca.gov>

History: This message has been forwarded. 

Visibility analysis_03-19-12.pdf

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\chollada\Local Settings\Temp\notesDF63F8\~web7097.h... 3/26/2012
#### Hugh V. MURRAY, v. Nicholas HIGGINS, and Whaley, Higgins & Associates.

No. 73581.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 28, 1998.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 30, 1998.

Application for Transfer Denied Nov. 24, 1998.

Hugh V. Murray, pro se.

Daniel G. Tobben, Kevin B. Behrndt, Murphy & Tobben, L.C., St. Louis, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*368*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Hugh V. Murray, appeals the dismissal by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County of his fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract claims. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript and find the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8Nos. 333-120061, 333-100077, 333-58168; Form S-3Nos. 333-131332, 333-123619, 333-118187, 333-116696,333-111287, 333-108752 and 333-76738) of Inovio BiomedicalCorporation, of our reports dated March 1, 2006, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Inovio Biomedical Corporation, InovioBiomedical Corporation management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting of Inovio Biomedical Corporation, included in thisAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

San Diego, CaliforniaMarch 11, 2006

----
- 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 > Employment in the Atomic Energy Field : A 1960 Occupational Survey

              																	Neef, Arthur					 and 	United States. Atomic Energy Commission. 						*Employment in the Atomic Energy Field : A 1960 Occupational Survey : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1297*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										April 1961,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4564,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
  I, Julianne M. Biagini, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Endwave Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation;and (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operationof internal controls over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal controls.   Date: August 13, 2004 /s/ JULIANNE M. BIAGINI   Julianne M. Biagini Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
**Exhibit 23.2**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-69951, 333-90635 and 333-39460), and in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-87749 and 333-32342), of Answerthink, Inc. of our report dated March 14, 2005, except for theeffect of the restatement described in Note 1, which is as of February 15, 2007, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Miami, Florida 

February 15, 2007
#### David Aitken et al. *v.*United States

No. 6480.

Entry No. 5615, etc.

Invoices dated Glasgow, Scotland, March 25, 1941, etc.

Certified March 27, 1941, etc.

Entered at Los Angeles, Calif., May 6, 1941, etc.

(Decided October 31, 1946)

*Lawt'ence, Tuttle & Harper (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olive®, Presiding 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:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 2, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
132016-7 & (85) Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. GARY A. BROWN and HAROLD C. Stephen J. Markman, NELTHROPE, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants,

v SC: 132016-7 COA: 259911, 259923 Wayne CC: 03-317557-NZ MAYOR OF DETROIT and CITY OF DETROIT, Defendants-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the Ju ly 27, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross

appellant are consider ed. We direct the Clerk to sche dule oral argumen t on whether to grant the applications or take other peremptory action. M CR 7.302(G)(1). The parties shall submit supplemental briefs within 42 da ys of the date of this order addressing whether an employee of a public body must report to an outside agency or higher authority to be protected by the Whis tleblower Protection Act, MCL 15.361 et seq ., and, if so, what statutory language supports that conclusion. They sh ould avoid submitting a mere restatement of the arguments ma de in their application papers.

s0130 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 2, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

   Certification of CEO and CFO Furnished Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant To
                  Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Samaritan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dr. Janet Greeson,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify for the purposes of section 1350
of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my
knowledge,

          (i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
          December 31, 2006 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements
          of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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



                                           Date:         April 27, 2007

                                             By:     /s/ Dr. Janet Greeson
                                                         -----------------
                                          Title:         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         and President



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2017178EN.01001501.xml

| 6.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/15

---

Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Deutsche Post v Commission

(Case T-152/12) (1)

1

((State aid - Postal sector - Aid granted to Deutsche Post by the German authorities - Increase in the cost of stamps combined with subsidies paid in order to cover the pension costs of employees engaged as officials - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 178/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund, T. Lübbig and M. Klasse, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium) and United Parcel Service Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: initially by E. Henny and T. Ottervanger, lawyers, and subsequently by T. Ottervanger, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Articles 1 to 4 and 6 of Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 concerning Measure C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG (OJ 2012 L 289, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Deutsche Post AG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Deutsche Post AG.

| 3. | UPS Europe and United Parcel Service Deutschland are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

UPS Europe and United Parcel Service Deutschland are ordered to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

1

---
# C_2013079EN.01000402.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/4

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 20 November 2012 — Ványai Józsefné v Nagyrábé Község Polgármesteri Hivatal

(Case C-526/12)

2013/C 79/08

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Józsefné Ványai

Applicant:

Defendant: Nagyrábé Község Polgármesteri Hivatal

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that that provision is intended to guarantee the possibility of a legal remedy only for unlawful and unjustified dismissal? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that that provision is intended to guarantee the possibility of a legal remedy only for unlawful and unjustified dismissal?

| 2. | Does that provision mean that an employer is bound to provide the employee with reasons in writing on dismissal and the dismissal will then not be unjustified? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does that provision mean that an employer is bound to provide the employee with reasons in writing on dismissal and the dismissal will then not be unjustified?

| 3. | Does failure to communicate reasons in itself make the measure unlawful or may the employer state reasons subsequently in the course of any employment litigation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does failure to communicate reasons in itself make the measure unlawful or may the employer state reasons subsequently in the course of any employment litigation?

---
Exhibit 10.8


 


AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO


THE WASHINGTON SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B. 1999 STOCK OPTION
AND INCENTIVE


PLAN


 


                                WSB Holdings, Inc.
sponsors The Washington Bank, F.S.B. 1999 Stock Option and Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).  The Plan is hereby amended as set forth
below:


 


1.               All references to “The
Washington Savings Bank, F.S.B.” shall be replaced with “WSB Holdings, Inc.”
and the “Company” shall refer to “WSB Holdings, Inc.”


 


2.               Except as amended above, the
Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


 


                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WSB Holdings, Inc.
has executed this Plan Amendment Number 1 to The Washington Bank, F.S.B. 1999 Stock Option and Incentive Plan
as of this 16th day of January, 2008.


 


	
   

  	
  WSB
  Holdings, Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Phillip C. Bowman

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Phillip
  C. Bowman

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Chief
  Executive Officer

  



 


 


	
  ATTEST:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Cheryl Golden
#### CARLYLE VAN LINES, INC., Appellant, v. CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 73364.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

July 21, 1998.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 30,1998.

Michael A. Wolff, Seigel & Wolff, P.C., St. Louis, for appellant.

Don R. Sherman, Goffstein, Raskas, Pom-erantz, Kraus, Sherman, Ruthmeyer & Sus-man, L.L.C., Stefan J. Glynias, Adrian P. Sulser, Mary Anne Lindsey, Evans & Dixon, L.L.C., St. Louis, for respondent.

Before ROBERT G. DOWD, P.J., and SIMON and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Carlyle Van Lines, Inc. (Carlyle), appeals from the granting of summary judgment in favor of defendants, Missouri Movers Risk Management Trust (Trust) and Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc. (MSI) in an action brought by Carlyle for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that no error of law appears. As an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum solely for the use of the parties involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
xedar8kx105_1232008.htm


     

    
      

      

    

     

    Exhibit 10.5

     

    

     

    
      
         

      

      
        Exhibit
          10.5 Page 1 of 4

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

     

     

    

     

     

    
      
         

      

      
        Exhibit
          10.5 Page 2 of 4

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

       

       

      

       

      
        
           

        

        
          Exhibit
            10.5 Page 3 of 4

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

         

        

        Exhibit 10.5 Page 4
          of
          4
No. 96-5570.

#### Vick *v.*Foote, Inc., t/a Foote Tire.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.