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

# DLA Land and Maritime Recruiter attends Cleveland Careerfest 

By Raymond BibbDLA Land and Maritime People and Culture

                COLUBMUS, Ohio  –              
The Defense Logistics Agency participated in the Careerfest 2019 Oct. 4 at the Huntington Convention Center of Cleveland in Cleveland, Ohio.  Many employers had the opportunity to visit with college seniors and juniors to discuss possible employment and college internships. More than 65 potential applicants visited the DLA booth over the four-hour period. 

Those attendees were interested in employment in general supply, product testing, contracting, human resources, IT and finance.  Students visiting the booth had some interesting backgrounds such as criminology/law enforcement, education, international studies, political science, business, economics and logistics

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

careers lcommunity lCulture L&MDLA L&MPACER/Intern L&MResource the Enterprise L&M
Exhibit 31.2

I, Paul Bailey, the chief financial officer of Iroquois Gas Transmission
System, L.P., certify that:

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Iroquois Gas
Transmission System, L.P.;

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report;

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting.

DATE: MAY 23, 2005

/S/ PAUL BAILEY
---------------------
PAUL BAILEY
VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
No. 74-5529.

#### McHar *v.*McHale,

419 U. S. 1115. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.
Opinion issued September 24, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00176-CR

———————————

RUSSELL POPE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law Number 3 

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1967710

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Russell Pope, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The 

motion complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.2(a). We have not issued a decision in the appeal. 
2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We 

dismiss any pending motions as moot.

We direct the Clerk to issue the mandate within 10 days of the date of this 

opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
No. 55609.

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 134466-K (St. Albans).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
# C_2012133EN.01002902.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 2nd January 2012 — ZZ v European Court of Auditors

(Case F-1/12)

2012/C 133/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot, A. Tymen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceeding

Subject-matter and description of the proceeding

The annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors rejecting the request for compensation for the losses suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision of 21 January 2011 rejecting his request for compensation for the losses suffered as a result of his retirement on invalidity pension; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of 21 January 2011 rejecting his request for compensation for the losses suffered as a result of his retirement on invalidity pension;

| — | if necessary, annul the Decision of 22 September 2011 rejecting his complaint dated 1st March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

if necessary, annul the Decision of 22 September 2011 rejecting his complaint dated 1st March 2011;

st

| — | compensate the losses suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the losses suffered;

| — | order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

---
No. 55598.

#### Louis Ruhe, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 168121-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of live birds similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Alfred Mazer*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 1265), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-86594) pertaining to the
resale of certain shares of Carreker Common Stock, and in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-63517) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Carreker
Corporation 1994 Long Term Incentive Plan and the Carreker Corporation Director Stock Option Plan, of our report dated April 29, 2003 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Carreker Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 2003.



Dallas,
Texas
April 29, 2003

---

QuickLinks
#### JAMES McWILLIAMS BLUE LINE, Inc. v. CITY OF NORWALK, CONN. THE SKIPPER.

Adm. No. 4342.

United States District Court D. Connecticut.

July 28, 1948.

Albert J. Merritt, of Bridgeport, Óonn., for libellant.

Harrison D. Schofield, of Hartford, Conn., for respondent.

HINCKS, District Judge.

The first exception questions that the libel states a cause of action within the admiralty jurisdiction of this court. As to this the libel plainly states a maritime tort. Conklin v. City of Norwalk, 2 Cir., 270 F. 68. This exception is therefore overruled.

The second exception is based upon the contention that the respondent’s acts which caused the libellant’s damage were done in the performance of a governmental function. But a city under legal obligation, as here, to operate and maintain a draw bridge, is not immune from liability for negligent conduct. This also is implicit in the Conklin v. City of Norwalk case just above cited. See also Workman v. City of New York, 179 U.S. 552, 566, 21 S.Ct. 212, 45 L.Ed. 314. This exception is overruled.

 The third exception is based upon the contention that the libel not having been brought within the year succeeding the tort was not seasonably brought. But for the maritime tort alleged no rigid statute of limitation is applicable. Benedict, 5th Ed., Voí. 1, 463. And if the respondent seriously contends the libellant is barred by laches, the basis for such a contention should be pleaded in its answer. United States v. Alex Dussel Iron Works, 5 Cir., 31 F.2d 535. This exception also is therefore overruled.

Ordered accordingly.
#### ST. LOUIS BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff/Respondent/ Cross-Appellant, v. Wardellar DANIELS, Defendant/Appellant/ Cross-Respondent.

Nos. 74179, 74261.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

June 22, 1999.

Kenneth C. Brostron, Stephen L. Beim-diek, Katherine M. Barrett, Lashly & Baer, P.C., St. Louis, for respondent.

Steve D. Brooks, Macarthur Moten, P.C., St. Louis, for appellant.

Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in plaintiffs favor on plaintiffs subrogation action. Plaintiff cross-appeals. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Plaintiffs motion to strike portions of the legal file is granted with respect to pages 28, 29, 30-31, 32, 33, and 34-42. The remainder of the motion is denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 25, 2013

NO. 03-11-00109-CR

Ex parte Jorge Gutierrez

APPEAL FROM 167TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON AND ROSE

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction: it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that the appeal be 

dismissed in accordance with the opinion of this Court; and it appearing that the appellant is 

indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision 

be certified below for observance.
No. 50772.

#### Protests 92763-K, etc., of Geo. Ehlenberger & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the reliquidation of the entries herein involved is similar in all material respects to that in *Bel Paese Sales Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(15 Cust. Ct. 7, C. D. 932). "In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited, judgment was entered directing the collector to reliquidate the entries herein, refunding the duty established to have been .taken in excess, in accordance with the decision and judgment in Abstract 45164. ,
#### Colombo Piatanesi *&*Sons (Arthur J. Fritz & Co.) *v.*United States

No. 8092.

Entry No. 4007, etc.

(Decided February 19, 1952)

*Lawrence, Tuttle & Harper (Frank L. Lawrence*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, 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:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows between counsel for plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, concerning the merchandise referred to herein:

> 1) That at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise to the United States the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was in each instance the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases, and that there is no higher foreign value.

> 2) That these cases may be submitted on this stipulation.

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 *559that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 99.2



    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 Annual Report of NBC Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending  March 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Alan G. Siemek, Vice
President and Treasurer  (Principal  Financial  and  Accounting  Officer) of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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/ Alan G. Siemek
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Alan G. Siemek
                                            Vice President and Treasurer
                                            (Principal Financial and
                                            Accounting Officer)
                                            May 30, 2003
F ILED

Jul y 28, 1999

C eci l C r o w son, Jr .

Appel l a t e Cour t

C l e r k

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

PAULA MARIE BROWN, ) C/A NO. 03A01-9812-CV-00417

)

Plaintiff-Appellee, )

)

)

)

) APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE

v . ) HAMILTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

)

)

)

)

JAMES A. BROWN, )

) HONORABLE L. MARIE WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.) JUDGE

CONCU R R I NG OP I N I O N

I concur in the majority opinion. I agree that the

majority’s approach to determining gross income for current child

support is correct in this case. I write separately to express

my view that the two-year-average approach utilized by the

majority in this case may not be appropriate in all cases.

__________________________

Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
| (1)   | the              Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of PrimePlayer Incorporated for the              quarter ended June 30, 2005 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the              quarter ended June 30, 2005, fairly presents in all material respects,              the              financial condition and results of operations of PrimePlayer              Incorporated. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/ Alexander                Gilliland                                      |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Alexander                Gilliland                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|  Title:    |  Principal                Executive Officer,Principal                Financial Officer and Director                                                                                                                                                                              |
|  Date:     |  July                12, 2006                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
Case No. 8,730a.

#### McCOY v. LEMONS.

[Hempst. 216.]1

Superior Court, Territory of Arkansas.

Jan., 1833.

Administrators — Appearance—Voluntary— Process.

1. The want of ten days’ notice to an administrator, of the presentation of a claim to the probate court, cannot be made a ground of objection where the administrator voluntarily appears.

2. Appearances cures all defects and irregularities in process and the want of service, and dispenses with the necessity of process.

Appeal from Conway circuit court.

Before ESKRIDGE, CROSS, and CLAYTON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT.

McCoy, as administrator of Carlisle, made his motion before the county court of Conway county, for an allowance against Lemons, administrator of McElmurry. After a hearing of the parties, the county court sustained his motion, and allowed him five hundred dollars, with interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum, from the 29th day of October, 1S25, from which Lemons appealed to the circuit court; but the appeal was dismissed on the motion of Lemons, on the ground that ten days’ notice had not been given to him, according to the directions of the statute of 1825, and from which latter decision McCoy has appealed to this court.

It appears from an examination of the proceedings before the county court, that the defendant W'as present at the trial in that court, which, in our opinion, superceded the necessity of notice. "The notice prescribed by the act of 1S25, can only be considered in the light of process to bring the party into court, and of course his voluntary appearance supersedes the necessity of it. Acts Fla. 1825, p. 66. There is no principle of law better established than that the appearance of the defendant cures all defects and irregularities in process. It cures the want of service. Caswall v. Martin, 2 Strange, 1072; Wood v. Lide, 4 Cranch [8 U. S.] 180; Knox v. Summers, *3*Cranch [7 U. S.] 498. Judgment reversed.
#### Hannah Bernstein et al., Appellants, v Thomas McGuinness et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[699 NYS2d 911]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated October 22, 1998, which granted the motion of the defendants Thomas McGuinness and Ft. *341Hamilton, Inc., to compel the plaintiffs to accept their answer as timely served, and denied their cross motion for leave to enter a judgment against those defendants upon their failure to timely appear and answer.

Ordered that the order .is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of the respondents, Thomas McGuinness and Ft. Hamilton, Inc., to compel the plaintiffs to accept their answer as timely served and denying the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to enter a judgment against them upon their failure to timely appear and answer. Since the respondents did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and provide a meritorious defense *(see, Santiago v Siega,*255 AD2d 307; *Pumarejo-Garcia v McDonough,*242 AD2d 374), the plaintiffs may enter a default judgment against them. S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.