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

# 2020 February New Employees 

By Julia JenningsDLA LAND and Maritime People and Culture

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
The February New Employee Orientation was held Feb. 19-20 in Building 20. Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Director of Operations Griff Warren opened the two-day orientation by welcoming the eight new associates. 

The new associates included police officers and members from legal, finance, supply operations, engineering and technology support and procurement process support.  

The new employees were briefed on the history of the DLA Land and Maritime and its vital role in supporting the warfighter and received information on the services available to them. 

The session concluded with a tour of the facility hosted by Installation Services.  Please welcome all of these new faces to DLA and wish them well in their new positions!   

 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Building Connections L&MCulture L&Mnew employee L&MResource the Enterprise L&MPACER/Intern L&M
(Reap. Dec. 9104)

#### Meadows Wye *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 801310.

(Decided March 21, 1958)

Plaintiff not represented.by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*750LawreNC®, Judge:

When this appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by this appeal to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

August 11, 1938

No. 39203.

#### Protest 936951-G of Collin & Gissel (Galveston).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Braun Corp.*v. *United States*(T. D. 47097) arsenic pentoxide was held dutiable as “all other acids and acid anhydrides not specially provided for” at 25 percent under paragraph 1 as claimed.
No. 47073.

#### Protests 59658-K, etc., of Wm. Liddell & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance, with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty.
No. 6420.

#### MARIE C. CUREAD, WIDOW OF JOHN B. LUTENBACHER, vs. THEODORE C. LUTENBACHER, ET ALS.

Syllabus.

If a public sale be voidable, the adjudicatee cannot be compelled against his will to comply with the adjudication, even though the vices in the sale be subsequently cured.

Appeal from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, Division “A,” No. 104,624. Honorable T. C. W. Ellis, Judge.

M. D. Dimitry, O. S. Starkey, George W. Flynn, J. A. Grasser, for appellant.

E. Pomes, for. defendant and appellee.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

The judgment of partition herein ordered that the interest of the- minors in the property be sold upon terms to be fixed by a family meeting to be convened for that purpose. This requirement was not observed, but on the contrary the property was advertised for sale and adjudicated to one Gomez, for cash, without any attempt having been made to convoke a family meeting to fix the terms as specifically prescribed by the judgment.

However, at a-family meeting held some two months later, the sale was ratified and approved; and thereupon the title was tendered to the adjudicatee, who declined to accept same on the ground, among others, that the sale being null at the time of the adjudication, a ratification thereof could not be forced on him against his will.

*394The trial Court upheld this contention of the adjudicatee and dismissed the proceeding instituted against him to compel him to comply with his bid. Its action in this respect is now before us for review.

The appellants contend that the adjudicatee should be compelled to comply with the adjudication because the irregularity complained of was cured through the ratification of the family meeting subsequently held; and they cite the following authorities which undoubtedly support this view:

Richardson vs. Richardson Heirs, 52 An., 1402. McRae vs. Smith, 112 La., 715.

These cases, however, are no longer authorities, for recently the Supreme Court, after citing Cavalier vs. Germain, 6 La., 215, to the effect that a ratification binds the party alone who ratifies, has said:

> “The case of Cavalier vs. Germain, 6 La., 215, was expressly re-affirmed in Mallard vs. Dejan, 45 La. An., 1270, and also in Succession of Garutsky, 52 An., 1919. In the case of McRae vs. Smith, 112 La., 715, it does not appear that the purchasers were unwilling to accept the title, if ratified by a family meeting. In Richardson vs. Richardson Heirs, 52 An., 1402, the proceedings of the family meeting and the sale were practically simultaneous, and were parts of the same proceedings. We consider the jurisprudence on the subject settled by the three well-considered cases first cited. If the title conveyed by the judicial sale be bad, we do not think that the .adjudicatee can be forced to .accept a subsequent ratification' of the void or voidable title. ’ ’’

Succession of Gairnes, 121 La., 223.

And this same principle has been applied in the later case of Reinach vs. Young, 122 La., 610.

*395Opinion and decree, June 30th, 1915.

There is therefore no error in the judgment and it is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

                           INTRAOP MEDICAL CORPORATION

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Intraop Medical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John P. Powers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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



                                          /s/  John P. Powers
                                        -------------------------------------
                                            John P. Powers
                                            Chief Executive Officer

                                            Date:  May 9, 2008


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Intraop Medical Corporation and will be retained by Intraop Medical
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Yuan J. Reels, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 889]

—Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J., at plea on Indictment No. 97-00410; DeRosa, J., at plea on Indictment No. 98-00062, and at sentencing under both indictments), both rendered March 9, 1999, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and assault in the second degree under Indictment No. 97-00410, and bail jumping in the first degree under Indictment No. 98-00062, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
# C_2014102EN.01003002.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-253/13) (1)

1

2014/C 102/46

Language of the case: Bulgarian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

1

---
----

----

| (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 13, 2009 |   | /s/ Jeffrey S. Keuntjes       |
|-----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                              |   | Jeffrey S. Keuntjes           |
|                              |   | Vice President - Finance      |
|                              |   | (principal financial officer) |

----

----
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Sonoma  Valley  Bancorp (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  we, Mel
Switzer,  Jr., Chief  Executive  Officer and Mary Dieter Smith,  Chief Financial
Officer, of the Company certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of
our knowledge:

     (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: May 11, 2006   /s/ Mel Switzer, Jr
            -------------  ----------------------------------------------------
                           Mel Switzer, Jr.,
                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                           (Principal Executive Officer)

    Dated:  May 11, 2006   /s/ Mary Dieter Smith
            ------------   ----------------------------------------------------
                           Mary Dieter Smith
                           Executive Vice President
                           Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                           (Principal Financial Officer and
                           Principal  Accounting Officer)
No. 47734.

#### Protests 991291-G, etc., of Lou I. Lubin, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the hats in question are not bleached, dyed, colored, or stained, and not blocked or trimmed, the claim at only 25 percent under paragraph 1504(b) (1) was sustained,. following Abstract 47291.
# C_2013026EN.01005801.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/58

---

Action brought on 16 November 2012 — European Drinks v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (DRACULA BITE)

(Case T-497/12)

2013/C 26/117

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Drinks SA (Ștei, Romania) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, 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: SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl (Pleasa, Romania)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 679/2011-4; and. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 679/2011-4; and.

| — | Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘DRACULA BITE’, for goods and services in classes 33, 35 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 7588321

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Romanian trade mark registration No 34847 of the figurative mark ‘Dracula’, for goods and services in classes 33 and 35

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and 42(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00007

- CR

C HRISTOPHER A RRON B OECKERS

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 396th District

Court

of Tarrant County (1534440D)

February 6, 2020

Per Curiam

( n f p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment and inc orporated order to

withdraw funds are modified to reduce the amount of reparations owed to $360

. It is

ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
# C_2012133EN.01002903.xml

| 5.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/29

---

Action brought on 10 January 2012 — ZZ v Frontex

(Case F-5/12)

2012/C 133/58

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Frontex

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of Frontex imposing a penalty on the applicant and the decision dismissing him.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 24 May 2011 dismissing the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 24 May 2011 dismissing the applicant;

| — | Annul the decision of 16 April 2011 imposing a penalty on him; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 16 April 2011 imposing a penalty on him;

| — | Order Frontex to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Frontex to pay the costs.

---
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00234-CV

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

JUAN J. MANCILLAS, M. D., ET AL

On Appeal from the

332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-478-11-F

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered. The 

Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment that 

American General's motion for summary judgment be granted. Costs of the appeal are 

adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 20, 2014
Case Wo. 8,683.

#### In re McCARTY.

[Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
No. 43185.

#### Protest 6016-K of General Concession Corp. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar to that the subject of Abstract 42413. The claim at 33% percent under paragraph 412 was therefore sustained.
MemPore/FirstBingo
     Technology Option Agreement-SECOND EXTENSION


TECHNOLOGY OPTION AGREEMENT-SECOND EXTENSION

BETWEEN:

MEMPORE CORP.a corporation under theCanada Business Corporations Act(MemPore)

-and-

SOUTH SHORE RESOURCES INC.(formerly FIRSTBINGO.COM)a corporation under the law of Nevada, U.S.A.(The Developer)

WHEREASMemPore and the Developer entered into an Technology Option Agreement (TOA) under which the Developer will explore opportunities for commercial use of MemPores technology, and the Term of the TOA was defined to be from October 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007, and which was subsequently extended to September 30, 2007;

AND WHEREASMemPore requires more time to perform its obligations required by the TOA;

THEREFOREin consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by each of the parties hereto), the parties hereto agree as follows:

|1. | The Term as defined in the TOA shall be extended until December 31, 2007.                                                                                   
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  
|2. | In all other respects, the parties ratify and confirm the TOA.                                                                                                
|  
|3. | This Agreement shall be incorporated into and form part of the TOA.                                                                                           
|  
|4. | This Agreement may be executed in two counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but both of which together shall constitute a single agreement.
|  

IN WITNESS WHEREOFeach of the parties hereto has entered into this Agreement as of the date and year of the last signature below:

MEMPORE CORP.
     SOUTH SHORE RESOURCES INC.per:TERRY KIMMEL
     per:RICHARD WACHTERTerry Kimmel, President
     Richard Wachter, PresidentDate:  September 26, 2007
     Date: October 9, 2007












---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON
FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> CANADIAN DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.43
<CASH>                                       8,718,258
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  592,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,684,686
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,568,753
<PP&E>                                       1,046,712
<DEPRECIATION>                                 432,099
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,975,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          591,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    34,684,253
<OTHER-SE>                                (21,299,976)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,975,977
<SALES>                                      2,057,251
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,057,251
<CGS>                                        1,636,262
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,636,262
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             897,760
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,692,765)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,692,765)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,692,785)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.12)
        

</TABLE>