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

# DLA Distribution Albany celebrates employees 

By  DLA Distribution Public Affairs

                ALBANY, Ga.  –              
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Albany, Georgia, celebrated employee appreciation day Sept. 12.

The festivities included a picnic as well as a safety related discussion given by Charles Thurmond, inspector, Marine Corps Logistics Base Fire Department. Thurmond shared with the staff his firsthand knowledge of the lifesaving ability of a well maintained fire extinguisher. 

Thurmond stressed the need for fire safety in our professional and personal lives. “Fire safety should be at the forefront of everyone’s mind, because a fire can start at any time of the day or night. What is done in the first few minutes of a fire starting is critical,” said Thurmond.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany
EX-10.2 Stock Option Agreement



 





EXHIBIT 10.2









October 1, 2007




Mitchell Yelen

c/o Pinchasik, Strongin, Muskat, Stein & Company, P.A.

3225 Aviation Avenue, Suite 500

Miami, FL 33133 USA




Dear Mitchell Yelen:




Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc., 1999 Stock Option
Plan for Non Employee Directors (the “Plan”), you have been granted a Non-Qualified Stock Option
to purchase 50,000 shares (the “Option”) of Class A common stock as outlined below.



	 	 	 
	Granted To:
	 	Mitchell Yelen
	 
	 	ID# Yelen
	 
	 	 
	Grant Date:
	 	September 28, 2007
	Option Granted:
	 	50,000
	Option Price per Share:
	 	$2.58                           Total Cost to Exercise: $129,000.00
	Expiration Date:
	 	September 28, 2017              unless terminated earlier.
	Vesting Schedule:
	 	20% immediately, 20% each year
	 
	 	10,000 on 09/28/2008
	 
	 	10,000 on 09/28/2009
	 
	 	10,000 on 09/28/2010
	 
	 	10,000 on 09/28/2011
	 
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Transferability:
	 	Not transferable except in accordance with the Plan.











By my signature below, I hereby acknowledge receipt of this Option granted on the date shown above,
which has been issued to me under the terms and conditions of the Plan. I further acknowledge
receipt of the copy of the Plan and agree to conform to all the terms and conditions of the Option
and the Plan.








 




SBS Tower 2601 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, PENTHOUSE II COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 TEL (305) 441-6901 FAX (305) 446-5148
#### F. R. Triples & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6890.

Entry Nos. 706254; 707634.

Invoices dated London, England, May 16, 1946, etc.

Certified May 28, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 23, 1946, etc.

(Decided February 18, 1947)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiff.

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

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Aot of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values less additions made on entry because of advances in similar cases.
#### Doulton & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6589.

Entry No. 758095, etc.

Invoices dated Birmingham, England, April 1946, etc.

Certified April 9, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 3, 1946, etc.

(Decided December 10, 1946)

*Beniamin A. Levett*for the plaintiff.

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

Keefe, 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.
#### Ivan MILES v. CITY OF GULFPORT.

No. 97-CA-00464-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 18, 1999.

Stephen J. Maggio, Gulfport, Attorney for Appellant.

Steven J. Miller, Gulfport, Attorney for Appellee.

BEFORE PRATHER, C.J., SMITH AND MILLS, JJ.

MILLS, Justice,

for the Court:

¶ 1. On October 25, 1993, the Department of Public Safety suspended appellant Ivan Miles’s drivers license for driving under the influence. Miles was subsequently convicted. He appeals his conviction to this Court alleging that criminal prosecution for driving under the influence in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-30 subsequent to suspension of his drivers license pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 63-11-23(2) constitutes a violation of the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Mississippi Constitutions.

¶ 2. In *Keyes v. State,*this Court recently and thoroughly considered the precise issue raised by Miles and found no valid double jeopardy claim. *Keyes v. State,*708 So.2d 540 (Miss.1998). Relying on the “same-elements test” established by the United States Supreme Court in *Blockburger v. United States,*284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) and subsequently reiterated in *United States v. Dixon,*509 U.S. 688, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993)(plurality), this Court stated:

> Keyes argues that he has already been punished for felony DUI by suspension of his license for one year, and that the *1013State is precluded from further prosecution. Even assuming that ALS [administrative license suspension pursuant to § 63-11-23(2) ] is sufficiently punitive to invite a double jeopardy analysis, we conclude that it requires different elements than conviction under § 63-11-30 and thus does not preclude subsequent prosecution under that section.

*Keyes,*708 So.2d at 544.

113. This issue has been fully considered and settled by *Keyes.*Accordingly, the lower court was correct in finding Miles had no valid double jeopardy claim, and we affirm its judgment.

¶ 4. AFFIRMED.

PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., BANKS, SMITH AND WALLER, JJ., CONCUR.

McRAE, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
Before the First Division,

June 17, 1952

No. 56766.

protests 553137-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Great Western Mercantile Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Max Schuster *v.*United States

No. 7856.

Entry Nos. 735566 and 719969.

(Decided August 2, 1950)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawkence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of these appeals are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Co.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, -affirming the judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement •embodied in the second return of- value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by each of these appeals for reappraisement was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value in each case, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500), and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheets at October 31, 1999 and the condensed
consolidated statements of income for the twelve months ended October 31, 1999
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                          80,004
<SECURITIES>                                    10,238
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,720
<ALLOWANCES>                                       874
<INVENTORY>                                     84,174
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               238,498
<PP&E>                                         420,710
<DEPRECIATION>                                 166,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 551,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          111,768
<BONDS>                                        421,054
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (133,817)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   551,753
<SALES>                                        531,669
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               531,669
<CGS>                                          467,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  467,905
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,859
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (84)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,674
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,518)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (21,210)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,692
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,692
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
RE: Does Dunn Edwards make sanding sealers - 240 g/l?

Robert Wendoll to: Stanley Tong 11/03/2011 02:57 PM

History: This message has been replied to.

Hello, Stan -- 

We don't happen to make a sanding sealer at 240 g/L for shop-coating in Ventura. Our 

only sanding sealers are in our Lacquer line for architectural use, subject to a limit of 

275 g/L.

Regards,

RW

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Robert Wendoll | Director of Environmental Affairs

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

From: Tong.Stanley@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Tong.Stanley@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 9:17 AM

To: Robert Wendoll

Subject: Does Dunn Edwards make sanding sealers - 240 g/l?

Robert,

I'm comparing South Coast, Ventura, and San Joaquin's rules for wood products coatings and found 

Ventura has a sanding sealer limit of 240 g/l while San Joaquin and South Coast's limit is 275 g/l.

Does Dunn Edwards market sanding sealers < 240 g/l? I'm evaluating if we should recommend that San 

Joaquin lower its sanding sealer limit. I'm told Sherwin Williams makes such a product

http://www.sherwin-williams.com/greensure/product-finishes/

Thanks.

Stan

Stanley Tong

U.S. EPA Region IX

Rules Office (AIR-4)

75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105

415-947-4122 -voice

415-947-3579 -fax

This email and any attachments contain confidential and 

privileged information belonging to the sender. If you are not 

the intended recipient, you may not disclose, copy, distribute, 

or use any such information. If this email has been sent to you 

in error, please reply to inform the sender of the error and 
then delete this email and any attachments.
No. 48222.

#### Protest 95692-K/91178 of Sokol & Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Nothing was found in the record to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action. The protest was therefore overruled.
# C_2013026EN.01005602.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/56

---

Action brought on 14 November 2012 — Biscuits Poult v OHIM — Banketbakkerij Merba (Biscuits)

(Case T-494/12)

2013/C 26/114

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Biscuits Poult (Montauban, France) (represented by: C. Chapoullié, 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: Banketbakkerij Merba BV (Oosterhout, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul or at least vary the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2012 in Case R 914/2011-3; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul or at least vary the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2012 in Case R 914/2011-3;

| — | uphold the decision of the Invalidity Division which declared that Design No 001114292-0001 was valid; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the decision of the Invalidity Division which declared that Design No 001114292-0001 was valid;

| — | dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity registered under reference ICD 000007120; and |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity registered under reference ICD 000007120; and

| — | order Banketbakkerij Merba BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Banketbakkerij Merba BV to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design of a soft-centred biscuit, for biscuits in Class 01-01 — Community design No 001114292-0001

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Banketbakkerij Merba BV

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Articles 4 to 9 of Regulation No 6/2002

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity dismissed

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and the Community design declared invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 4(2) and of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2015279EN.01000901.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia)) — VAS ‘Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija’, Latvijas Republikas Satiksmes ministrija v Kaspars Nīmanis

(Case C-664/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Driving licence - Renewal by the issuing Member State - Condition of residence in the territory of that Member State - Declaration of residence))

(2015/C 279/10)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: VAS ‘Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija’, Latvijas Republikas Satiksmes ministrija

Defendant: Kaspars Nīmanis

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the only way in which a person who applies for the issue or renewal of a driving licence in that Member State can prove that he satisfies the condition of ‘normal residence’, within the meaning of that article, in the territory of that Member State, set out in Article 7(1)(e) and 7(3)(b) of that directive, is to establish that he has a declared place of residence in the territory of the Member State concerned.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

---
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the use in MDS Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 40-F of our report dated December 18, 2002 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of MDS Inc. for the fiscal years ended October 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000.  We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-12056, 333-12058, 333-12548, and 333-13538) pertaining to the Stock Option Plan of MDS Inc. of our report dated December 18, 2002 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of MDS Inc. for the fiscal years ended October 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000 included in the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended October 31, 2002.

|Toronto, Canada,
February 7, 2003 | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP        Chartered Accountants
|--------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 32.01     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 Friendly Energy Exploration (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas Tallant, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Douglas Tallant By: Douglas Tallant Chief Executive Officer  Dated: June 17, 2010  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.