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

# Functional community reps meet to share ideas, successes

By Kathleen T. RhemDLA Human Resources

                Fort Belvoir, Virginia  –              DLA Human ResourcesDLA Strategic PlanDLA People and Culture Plan

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Functional community managerscultureCulture/Climate SurveyPeople and CulturePeople and Culture Planstrategic plan
#### W. X. Huber Co. *v.*United States

No. 6560.

Entry No. 10903.

Invoice dated Dundee, Scotland, May 19, 1939.

Certified May 22, 1939.

Entered at Los Angeles, Calif., June 29, 1939.

(Decided December 2, 1946)

*Harper & Harper (Lawrence A. Harper*and *George R. Tuttle of*counsel) for the plaintiff.

*447
      *Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FitzGibbon, Daniel I, Auster*and *Samuel D. Spector,*special attorneys), for tlie defendant.

Keefe, Judge:

This is a reappraisement of linoleum imported from England. It was invoiced at Is. *7%d.*per square yard, less 3 per centum cash discount, packing, freight, insurance, and carriage included. The merchandise was entered at the same prices, less the c. i. f. charges, plus 10 per centum to make market value. The appraiser made his return on the basis of the foreign value at 2s. *Sfíd.*per square yard, less 10 per centum less *4/*per centum, packed.

The documentary evidence introduced at the trial by the plaintiff included the price list prevailing at the time of the exportation of the linoleum. This price list, together with the report of the Treasury attaché, admitted in evidence on behalf of the Government, fully establishes that the appraised value correctly represents the price at the time of exportation to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantitites and in the ordinary course of trade, packed ready for shipment to the United States.

Judgment will therefore be entered in favor of the Government sustaining the value found by the appraiser as the value of the merchandise.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**833 KA 10-01454**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRANDON STILTS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

CHRISTOPHER S. BRADSTREET, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOHN C. TUNNEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (AMANDA M. CHAFEE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Marianne Furfure, A.J.), rendered April 10, 2009. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the term of probation previously imposed upon his conviction of rape in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.30 [1]) and sentencing him to a determinate term of incarceration, following a hearing on the issue whether he violated the conditions of his probation. We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in denying his request for substitution of counsel. The record establishes that the court “made the requisite inquiry to determine whether defendant had good cause for substitution” ( People v Henderson , 77 AD3d 1311, 1311), and “ ‘thereafter reasonably concluded that defendant’s . . . objections had no merit or substance’ ” ( id. ). The denial of a defendant’s request for substitution of assigned counsel does not constitute an abuse of the court’s discretion where, as in this case, “tensions between client and counsel on the eve of [a hearing] were the precipitate of differences over strategy” ( People v Medina , 44 NY2d 199, 208; see People v Shorter , 6 AD3d 1204, 1205, lv denied 3 NY3d 648). We reject defendant’s further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel ( see generally People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147). Finally, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh

or severe.

Entered: July 1, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
No. 40533.

#### Protests 611477-G, etc., of Sherrysal Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was established that the merchandise is similar to the sherry flavoring involved in *Wile*v. *United States*(T. D. 49494). The claim At 35 percent under paragraph 775 was therefore sustained.
exhibit104.htm


     

    
      

      

    

    Exhibit
      10.4

     

     

    
      FORM
        OF

      AMENDMENT
        NO. 1

      COMPENSATORY
        STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS

      2004
        STOCK OPTION PLAN

       

       

      This
        Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the Compensatory Stock Option Agreement
        described below is made as of January 28, 2008 between                
        (the “Optionee”) and KNBT Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”).

       

      WHEREAS,
        pursuant to the terms of the 2004 Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) a compensatory
        stock option (the “Options”) covering            
        shares of common stock of the Company was granted to the Optionee on              ,
        200   ;

       

      WHEREAS,
        the
        Compensatory Stock Option Agreement (the “Agreement’) reflecting the terms under
        which the Option was granted provided in Section 2 thereof that accelerated
        vesting of the Option would not occur in the event of a Change in Control
        (as
        such term is defined in the Plan) of the Company notwithstanding the provisions
        of Section 8.03(b) of the Plan;

       

      WHEREAS,
        the
        Company has entered into the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between
        National Penn Bancshares, Inc. (“National Penn”) and the Company dated as of
        September 6, 2007 (the “Merger Agreement”), whereby the Company will be merged
        with and into National Penn (the “Merger”);

       

      WHEREAS,
        the
        Merger will constitute a Change in Control of the Company for purposes of
        the
        Plan; and

       

      WHEREAS,
        the
        Company and National Penn have agreed that the Option should be amended to
        provide the vesting thereof will accelerate upon completion of the Merger
        consistent with the terms of the Plan.

       

      NOW
        THEREFORE, IT IS
        AGREED, that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the
        Agreement, the Option shall become immediately vested and exercisable in
        full in
        the event of a Change in Control (as such term is defined in the Plan) of
        the
        Company in accordance with the terms of the Plan, it being understood that
        the
        Effective Time (as such term is defined in the Merger Agreement) of the Merger
        will constitute a Change in Control.

       

      IN
        WITNESS
        WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Amendment to be executed as of
        the date first written above.

       

                  
        KNBT BANCORP, INC.

       

                    By:   ________________________________ 

                  
        Scott V. Fainor

                  
        President and Chief Executive Officer

       

                    By:   _______________________________

                   Optionee
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                                       0001057507
<NAME>                 RESORTQUEST INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
<CURRENCY>                                  US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                          23,309
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,823
<ALLOWANCES>                                        56
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,823
<PP&E>                                          16,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,283
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 184,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,919
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           169
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,998
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   184,920
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,524
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,171
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 403
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,531
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,462
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,069
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,347
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,416
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.1.7

Renco Steel Holdings, Inc.
30 Rockefeller Plaza Suite 4225
New York NY 10112

212-541-6000
Facsimile 212-541-6197

RENCO STEEL HOLDINGS, INC.        8.75% PROMISSORY NOTE DUE UPON DEMAND

$2,800,000

FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Renco Steel Holdings, Inc., an Ohio corporation ("Renco Steel"), hereby promises to pay to the order of The Renco Group, Inc., a New
York corporation ("Renco"), the principal amount of TWO MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,800,000) together with interest, compounded monthly, on the principal amount hereof and accrued
interest at the rate of 8.75% per annum from the date hereof until paid, such interest to be payable together with the principal amount upon demand by Renco, which demand may be made at any time.

The
undersigned may prepay, at any time, the entire balance of principal and interest owed under this Note without penalty or premium of any nature.

Renco's
right to payment pursuant to this Note is hereby contractually subordinated in right of payment to Renco Steel's obligations under Renco Steel's 107/8% Senior
Secured Notes, due 2005.

Should
the indebtedness represented by this Note be placed in the hands of attorneys for collection, the undersigned agrees to pay, in addition to the principal and interest due and
payable hereon, all costs of collecting this Note, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

This
Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.

This
note is dated July 31, 2002.

| |  |  | RENCO STEEL HOLDINGS, INC.
| |  |  | --------------------------
| |  |  | By:                       
| |  |  |                           

---

QuickLinks
No. D-1796.

#### In re Disbarment of Hamilton.

Jim D. Hamilton, of Houston, Tex., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
#### REFORM PARTY OF ALABAMA, an unincorporated association of electors of the State of Alabama; Robin Collins, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jim BENNETT, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Alabama; Bill Pryor, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Alabama, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 98-6708

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Oct. 28, 1998.

John P. McClusky, Tuscaloosa, AL, David A. Gespass, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

John J. Park, Jr., Robert M. Weinberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jeffery A. Foshee, Foshee & George, L.L.C., Montgomery, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the district court’s September 8, 1998 order, cited as *Reform Party of Alabama v. Bennett,*18 F.Supp.2d 1342 (M.D.Ala.1998).

AFFIRMED.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1864 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program until September 30, 2012. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2011 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program until 

September 30, 2012. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSUR4 ANCE PROGRAM. 

5 (a) PROGRAM EXTENSION.—Section 1319 of the Na6 tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2011’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘September 30, 2012’’. 

9 (b) FINANCING.—Section 1309(a) of the National 

10 Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1864 IS

1 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2011’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘September 30, 2012’’. 

3 (c) REPEAL.—The Continuing Appropriations Act, 

4 2012 (Public Law 112–36) is amended by striking section 

5 130. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Philip Lewis, Appellant.

[613 NYS2d 2]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered September 25, 1992, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 6 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the radio run stating that a light-skinned black male wearing a red sweatsuit, accompanied by another male wearing a black and white jacket, had a gun at a specified intersection afforded the police at least the common law right to inquire of defendant *(see, People v Be Bour,*40 NY2d 210). Defendant’s flight before the officers questioned him justified pursuit in the circumstances of this case *(see, People v Bora,*83 NY2d 531).

Finally, inconsistent testimony from the officers on immaterial matters did not render the testimony as a whole incredible as a matter of law *(see, People v Fryer,*186 AD2d 405, *lv denied*81 NY2d 762). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.
AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                      -------------------------------------
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                                   ----------
                 SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                 -----------------------------------------------
              FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995, 1994 AND 1993
              -----------------------------------------------------


                                               1995         1994         1993
                                            ----------   ----------   ----------


Net income                                  $  226,568   $   94,004   $  508,670
                                            ==========   ==========   ==========


            PRIMARY
--------------------------
Weighted average number of
 common shares outstanding
 during the year                             1,901,426      945,351      987,538

Add - common  equivalent  shares
 determined using the "treasury stock"
 method representing shares issuable
 upon vesting of stock bonuses and
 exercise of employee and director
 stock options                             (1)     --        19,191        3,724
                                            ----------   ----------   ----------

Weighted average number of shares
 used in the calculation of primary
 income per common share                     1,901,426      964,542      991,262
                                            ==========   ==========   ==========

Primary income per
 common share                               $      .12   $      .10   $      .51
                                            ==========   ==========   ==========


          FULLY DILUTED
---------------------------------
Weighted average number of shares
 used in calculating primary
 income per common share                     1,901,426      964,542      991,262

Add incremental shares representing
 shares issuable upon exercise of
 stock options and warrants based
 upon the year-end market price             (1)   --            258       21,432
                                            ----------   ----------   ----------

Weighted average number of shares
 used in the calculation of fully
 diluted income per common share             1,901,426      964,800    1,012,694
                                            ==========   ==========   ==========

Fully diluted income
 per common share                           $      .12   $      .10   $      .50
                                            ==========   ==========   ==========


                                   EXHIBIT 11

(1)  Determined using the modified treasury stock method.
No. 55643.

#### James Barclay & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 169092-K/3238 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 154QQ the court dismissed the protest.
# C_2014151EN.01000701.xml

| 19.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Emiliano Torralbo Marcos v Korota SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

(Case C-265/13) (1)

1

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Judicial fees and deposits required for lodging appeals in employment law cases - Failure to implement EU law - Scope of EU law - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

2014/C 151/08

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Emiliano Torralbo Marcos

Applicant:

Defendants: Korota SA, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Terrassa — Interpretation of Art. 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1) and of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (codified version) (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36) — Right to effective judicial protection — National legislation making the bringing of legal proceedings subject to payment of the judicial fees — Powers of the national court hearing the action — Application in the field of social policy — Insolvency of employers.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de la Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain).

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

1

---
Exhibit 23.01

Consent of KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
Imatron Inc.:

We consent to incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements (File
Nos. 333-11515,  333-6749,  333-3529,  333-647 and 33-63123 on Form S-3 and File
Nos. 333-15081,  333-9989,  33-61179,  33-71786,  33-66992,  33-66952, 33-40391,
33-28662  and 33-26833 on Form S-8) of Imatron Inc. of our report dated April 6,
1998, relating to the consolidated  balance sheet of Imatron Inc. and subsidiary
as of December 31, 1997, and the related consolidated  statements of operations,
shareholders'  equity and cash flows for the year then  ended,  and the  related
schedule,  which report  appears in the December 31, 1997 annual  report on Form
10-K of Imatron Inc.

                                                           KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

San Francisco, California
April 14, 1998