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 helps Army train tank mechanics 

By DLA Public AffairsDLA Public Affairs

                Fort Benning, Georgia  –              
At the Fort Benning Maneuver Center of Excellence the mission of the United States Army Armor School is to train tank and Bradley mechanics. DLA supports the FBMCOE with parts, uniforms, food, fuel and more ensuring they can accomplish their mission.

                                                                 

                                                                                                      View the video on YouTube.

 

 

 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Fort Benning Maneuver Center of ExcellenceUnited States Army Armor Schooltank mechanicsU.S. Army
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement No. 333-116837 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-126312, 333-126573, 333-127464 and 333-133353 on Form S-3 of Strategic Hotels & Resorts, Inc. of our report dated February 24, 2006, relatingto the consolidated financial statements of SHC Prague InterContinental B.V. appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Strategic Hotels & Resorts, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/    Deloitte s.r.o. 

Prague, Czech Republic

February 28, 2007
TAH

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0206

__________________________________________________________________

BRENT YAGER,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, UNEMPLOYMENT

INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, STATE OF MONTANA,

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondents and Appellees.

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

__________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of Appellee Department of Public Health and Human 

Services’ motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time

to and including August 14, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file the 

Appellee’s response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 16 2020

07/16/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0206
#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6870.

Entry No. 748031, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, March 6, 1946, etc.

Certified March 8, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 27, 1946, etc.

(Decided February 13, 1947)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiffs.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

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

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2012243EN.01003403.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/34

---

Action brought on 25 June 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-65/12)

2012/C 243/60

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Commission not to grant the applicant family allowance in respect of his wife’s son of a previous marriage.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 17 August 2011 to refuse the applicant’s application of 20 July 2011, concerning his wife’s child, for family allowance and the advantages resulting therefrom and annual travel expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 17 August 2011 to refuse the applicant’s application of 20 July 2011, concerning his wife’s child, for family allowance and the advantages resulting therefrom and annual travel expenses;

| — | Insofar as it is necessary, annul the decision rejecting his claim of 13 March 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Insofar as it is necessary, annul the decision rejecting his claim of 13 March 2012;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
#### Abercrombie & Fitch Co. *v.*United States

No. 6539.

Entry No. 730005, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, September 26, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 16, 1941, etc.

(Decided November. 22, 1946)

*Lane & Wallace*and *Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

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

Cline, Judge:

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

(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 importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 45305.

#### Protests 23622-K, etc., of Wilbur-Ellis Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Peat Import Corp.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 181, C. D. 319) the peat moss in question was held free of duty under paragraph 1685 as claimed.
### Utilization of ground water in the Santa Maria Valley area, California

By: G.A. MillerR. E. Evenson

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1819A

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

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.
# C_2014039EN.01002802.xml

| 8.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/28

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Lebedef v Commission

(Case F-68/12) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Staff report - 2010 appraisal procedure - Application for annulment of staff report - Application for annulment of number of promotion points awarded)

2014/C 39/51

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayer and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of promotion points awarded to the applicant and his staff report for the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Lebedef to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Lebedef to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012, p. 28.

1

---
EXHIBIT 23.2.3

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-87749) of AnswerThink Consulting Group,
Inc. and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated December
17, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements for the year
ended December 31, 1998 of THINK New Ideas, Inc. included in AnswerThink
Consulting Group, Inc.'s Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December
31, 1999, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


New York, New York
March 9, 2000
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. sec. 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the quarterlyReport of IWT Tesoro Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Forrest P. Jordan, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 

The foregoingcertification shall not be deemed to be filed for the purposes of Section 18of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to liabilityunder this section.  This certificationshall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.2is expressly incorporated by reference in any such filing.

 
| Dated: September 2,  2005 | /s/ Forrest P. Jordan   |   |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                           | Forrest P. Jordan       |
|                           | Chief Financial Officer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 91 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9143]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Board of Overseers

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 
2, notice is hereby given that there will be a meeting of the Board of 
Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award on June 6, 
2007. The Board of Overseers is composed of eleven members prominent in 
the fields of quality, innovation, and performance excellence and 
appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, assembled to advise the 
Secretary of Commerce on the conduct of the Baldrige Award. The purpose 
of this meeting is to discuss and review information received from the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology with the members of the 
Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. The agenda 
will include: Discuss the Award Eligibility Rules; Baldrige Improvement 
Panel's Recommendations to the Program and the Baldrige Foundation; 
Oral Feedback for Award Recipients; and Formation of Business School 
Deans' Council.

DATES: The meeting will convene June 6, 2007, at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn 
at 3 p.m. on June 6, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Administration Building, Lecture Room A, 
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. All visitors to the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology site will have to pre-register to be admitted. 
Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address and phone 
number to Diane Harrison no later than Tuesday, June 5, 2007, and she 
will provide you with instructions for admittance. Ms. Harrison's e-
mail address is <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c48454d424902444d5e5e455f43426c42455f58024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7939e969992d99f9685859e849899b7999e8483d9909881">[email protected]</span></a> and her phone number is (301) 
975-2361.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Harry Hertz, Director, National 
Quality Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, telephone number (301) 975-2361.

    Dated: May 4, 2007.
James M. Turner,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. E7-9143 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-114145 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-37648,
333-55260, 333-67784, 333-69504, and 333-99473 on Form S-8 of Universal Compression Holdings, Inc. of our report dated
June 4, 2004, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Universal Compression Holdings, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2004.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Houston,
Texas
June 4, 2004

---



QuickLinks
No. 55553.

#### Quon Quon Company *v.*United States,

protests 151088-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silent butlers, composed wholly or in chief value of brass, *433not plated, used chiefly for utilitarian purposes in the household, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Fan Co.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 42, C. D. 1261), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-51137) pertaining to Correctional Properties Trust's 2000 Stock
Option Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-90364) and in the
related Prospectus of our report dated January 23, 2003, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Correctional Properties Trust
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

                                                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP

West Palm Beach, Florida
March 14, 2003.
Exhibit
10.34


 


DOLLAR GENERAL
CORPORATION


100 MISSION RIDGE


GOODLETTSVILLE, TN
37072


 


January 8,
2008


 


Mr. David Bere


c/o Dollar General
Corporation

100 Mission Ridge

Goodlettsville, TN  37072


 


Re:    Notice
of Initiation of Transition Period under Employment Agreement


 


Dear David:


 


In connection with the
closing of the acquisition contemplated in that certain Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of March 11, 2007, by and among Buck Holdings, L.P., a
Delaware corporation (“Parent”), Buck Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, and the Dollar General Corporation (“Company”),
you and the Company executed an employment agreement (the “Employment Agreement”),
the terms of which became effective on July 6, 2007.  All capitalized terms not defined herein
shall have the meaning set forth in your Employment Agreement.


 


Pursuant to the terms of
your Employment Agreement, you currently serve as the Interim Chief Executive
Officer of the Company.  Section 3
of your Employment Agreement provides that at the Company’s option the Company
may extend your service under the Employment Agreement for three (3) months
if a new Chief Executive Officer is hired by the Company during the Initial
Term or any Initial Term Extension (the “Transition Period” as used in the
Employment Agreement).  Further, Section 3
of your Employment Agreement provides that the Company is required to provide
you with notice of its intent to initiate the Transition Period at least five (5) business
days prior to the date of the new Chief Executive Officer’s commencement of
employment with the Company.  By this
letter, the Company hereby provides you notice of the initiation of the
Transition Period, such period to last for three (3) calendar months from
the date the new Chief Executive Officer commences employment with the Company,
in lieu of any month-to-month renewal of the Initial Term Extension as
currently in effect (which was put into effect by the mutual agreement between
you and the Company under the terms of the letter executed by you and the
Company on December 28, 2007).


 


In the event of any
dispute over the terms of this letter agreement, Section 22(h) of the
Employment Agreement shall govern.  This
letter agreement may be executed in counterparts.


 


	
   

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By: 

  	
  /s/ Michael Calbert

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name: Michael Calbert

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title: Chairman, Board
  of Directors
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Moses Russ, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special and Trial Term, New York County,

February 8, 1966.

*Moses Buss,*defendant in person. *Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Alan Broomer*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Mitchell D. Schweitzer, J.

A letter received from the defendant (dated Jan. 2, 1966) will be treated as a motion for resentence.

A review of the record indicates that this defendant had been initially indicted for the crimes of feloniously possessing a narcotic drug with intent to sell and for feloniously possessing a narcotic drug, all arising out of his possession of 478 glassine envelopes Containing heroin. He was thereafter released on bail and, while out on bail, was arrested for a Federal narcotics violation on which charge he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a definite term of five years on February 3, 1965.

*581On January 8,1965, while in Federal custody, he was produced in court by a United States Marshal and on this day he pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted felonious possession of a narcotic drug. On February 2,1965, while still in Federal custody, he was produced by a United States Marshal for sentencing and received a State prison sentence of two to three years.

The defendant is still in Federal custody, serving his term of five years in a Federal penitentiary, and requests that this court direct that the State prison sentence be made to run concurrently with the sentence he is presently serving.

As hereinabove noted, the State prison sentence was imposed upon the defendant prior to the imposition of the United States District Court sentence. Even if this court had been so minded, it was not empowered to direct its sentence to run concurrently with another sentence to be imposed in the future. *(People ex rel. De Santis*v. *Warden of New York City Penitentiary,*176 Misc. 844, affd. 262 App. Div. 1003; *People ex rel. Bove*v. *McDonnell,*128 N. Y. S. 2d 643, app. dsmd. 284 App. Div. 937.) Unlike the circumstances in *People ex rel. Winelander*v. *Ruthazer*(17 Misc 2d 720), defendant was not under a prior sentence with which the judgment of this court could have been made to run concurrently. It is not without significance that the United States District Court Judge who imposed sentence oh. this defendant on February 3 must be deemed to have known of the State prison sentence which had been meted out to the defendant the day before by this court, yet made no direction that any part of the Federal sentence be served in State prison.

The court is not unmindful of the fact that were sufficient mitigating factors shown by the defendant, the sentence might still be suspended since the prison term imposed by this court has not yet commenced (Penal Law, § 2188). However, upon a review of the entire record and the presentence report, I find that no reason has been shown why the court should exercise any discretion and amend this sentence to suspend judgment.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.