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

# USAF master sergeant honored for Korea contributions

By Jake JoyDLA Disposition Services Public Affairs

BATTLE CREEK, Mich. - U.S. Air Force Master Sgt. Amanda Hall received Defense Logistics Agency thanks and the Defense Meritorious Service Medal in South Korea March 12 for outstanding contributions to the DLA Disposition Services mission during her tour as superintendent of the Gimcheon property disposal site.

Hall was credited for “providing outstanding professional skills, knowledge, and leadership as a disposal contingency support team representative supporting four major Korea joint training events.” She conducted 150 vital customer engagements with military units by advising on disposal requirements, providing training, and expediting turn-in of unit excess property that directly contributed to Gimcheon’s selection as “2020 Pacific Site of the Year.”

Hall’s follow-on active duty tour will take her to Shreveport, Louisiana, where she’ll serve at Barksdale Air Force Base.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA DS;perform and reward DS
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

Application of ) 

 ) 

INTER ISLAND CHARTERS LTD. ) DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0039 

 ) 

for an exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 ) 

(Bahamas-Florida charters) ) 

__________________________________________) 

APPLICATION OF INTER ISLAND CHARTERS LTD. 

FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXEMPTION

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: 

John R. Mietus, Jr. 

Law Office of John Mietus, LLC 

6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 300 

Bethesda, MD 20817-7500 

 (202) 747-5212 

 (240) 396-5362 fax 

john@mietuslaw.com 

Counsel for INTER ISLAND CHARTERS 

LTD. 

 

NOTICE: Any person may support or oppose this application by filing an answer 

and serving a copy of the answer on counsel for Inter Island and upon 

persons served with this application no later than May 15, 2012. 

April 30, 2012
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

Application of ) 

 ) 

INTER ISLAND CHARTERS LTD. ) DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0039 

 ) 

for an exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 ) 

(Bahamas-Florida charters) ) 

__________________________________________) 

APPLICATION OF INTER ISLAND CHARTERS LTD. 

FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXEMPTION

 Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40109(c), Inter Island Charters Ltd. respectfully requests 

renewal of the above-captioned exemption, granted by Notice of Action Taken dated 

May 6, 2011 (the "Notice"), for an additional, one-year period. The Notice permits Inter 

Island to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail 

between a point or points in the Bahamas and a point or points in Florida, and other 

charters pursuant to 14 CFR Part 212 of the Department’s regulations, using small 

aircraft. Inter Island intends to invoke the automatic extension provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 

558(c) and Part 377 of the Department's Special Regulations. In support of this 

application, Inter Island states as follows: 

 1. Inter Island is a Bahamian flag carrier and intends to operate Bahamas-U.S. 

charter service under the above-captioned authority. It remains licensed by the Bahamian 

Department of Civil Aviation to perform charter air transportation, and Bahamas-U.S. 

operations remain governed by principles of comity and reciprocity that support the 

Department’s continued grant of authority. See, e.g., Mitchell Enterprises Limited d/b/a
# C_2012209EN.01001201.xml

| 14.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/12

---

Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission

(Case T-210/12)

2012/C 209/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (West Drayton, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s Decision of 20 April 2011 concerning State aid C 19/09 which Denmark intends to implement regarding the restructuring of TV 2 Danmark A/S; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s Decision of 20 April 2011 concerning State aid C 19/09 which Denmark intends to implement regarding the restructuring of TV 2 Danmark A/S;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging essentially that the European Commission erred in law when it failed to include in its assessment aid granted to TV 2 Danmark A/S through 8 regional TV 2 broadcasting stations.

In this regard, the applicant submits that the broadcasts provided free of charge by the regional broadcasting stations, which are financed by licence fees, to TV 2 Danmark A/S constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In addition, it is recalled that according to the public service licence issued to TV 2 Danmark A/S by the Minster of Culture, TV 2 Danmark A/S retains the advertising revenue generated by the ‘advertisement slots’ in the regional broadcast.

The applicant further alleges that by disregarding the State aid provided to TV 2 Danmark A/S through the regional broadcasting stations, the defendant has not considered the financial situation of TV 2 Danmark A/S in the light of the full spectrum of the revenues of such.

Due to this failure, the applicant alleges that the entire assessment made by the defendant of the restructuring plan is based on erroneous assumptions concerning TV 2 Danmark A/S’s financial situation. Therefore, the applicant alleges that the defendant has not been in a position to confirm that the conditions laid down in its own Guidelines (1) are met.

1

Consequently, the applicant alleges that the defendant has failed to comply with the criteria defined by the Commission itself in the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty and ultimately in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, when it assessed the rescue and restructuring aid to TV 2 Danmark A/S.

---

(1)  Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 C 244, p. 2)

1

---
No. 96-289.

#### Ferguson et al. *v.*F. R. Winkler GMBH & Co. KG.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Mallisee *v.*Hawkins, Appellant.

Argued April 8,1936.

Before Kephart, C. J., Schaefer, Maxex, Drew, Linn and Stern, JJ.

*59
      *W. T. Tredioay,*for appellant.

*Albert Barnes Smith,*for appellee.

May 25, 1936:

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the refusal of the court below to open or satisfy a judgment entered on a bond accompanying a mortgage. The review here is limited to a determination of whether the court below abused its discretion; unless its action was manifestly unreasonable or shows a misapplication of the law it will not be reversed : *Mielcuszmy v. Rosol,*317 Pa. 92.

Although the evidence reveals that in June, 1915, Hawkins, appellant, gave to Phillips, the banker who had originally negotiated the placing of this mortgage, a sum sufficient to retire it, there is little evidence, if any, to prove that Phillips was the mortgagee’s agent with authority to accept payment of the principal. The burden of proving agency rested upon appellant: *Lewis v. Matias,*300 Pa. 238; *Pore v. Duke,*303 Pa. 528; *Judith v. Dicola,*317 Pa. 353. As he failed to sustain this burden, the mortgage was not retired by the payment made to Phillips.

It is argued that regardless of whose agent Phillips was, appellee’s course of conduct with respect to Phillips’s check was such that appellant should be relieved of the burden of this judgment. In the fall of 1925, after the receipt of the money above mentioned, Phillips gave his own check in payment of this mortgage to the appellee. The check was drawn on the Modern State Bank. Appellee deposited this check in another bank in which he carried an account, and subsequently it was returned marked “No funds.” Appellant and Phillips were immediately notified of that fact. Eight or ten months later the Modern State Bank closed; no further action was taken by any party until the entry of this judgment

*60Appellant contends that it was the duty of appellee to deposit this check in the Modern State Bank and not in the bank actually used, and to present it a second time after it was dishonored. If the law did impose such duties, the record fails to disclose that prejudice resulted to appellant from their disregard. The evidence shows that this check could never have been honored at any time.

However, there is no legal support in either of these arguments. The holder of a check may use another bank as his collecting agent notwithstanding that the drawee bank is one where the holder carries an account. There is no rule which compels the presentation of a check for deposit and payment in the drawee bank merely because that bank is also a depository of the holder’s funds.

Equally untenable is the argument that a dishonored check must be presented a second time for payment after its dishonor. The duties of a holder of a dishonored check are set forth in the Act of May 16, 1901, P. L. 191, chapter 7, and nowhere does it impose the duty of presenting a dishonored check for payment a second time.

Decree affirmed at appellant’s cost.
### IN THE NINTH COURT OF APPEALS

_____________________ _____
09

- 16

- 00049

- CR

__________________________

_________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Cour t of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14

- 20464

_________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT

THE NINTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should b e affirmed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, in accordance with the Court’s opinion, that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion of the Court delivered by Justice Hollis Horton

December 13, 2017

AFFIRMED

********** Copies of this judgment and the Co urt’s opinion are certified for observance.

Carol Anne Harley Clerk of the Court Dennis Jermaine Booker

v. The State of Texas
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2465

NSONSA KISALA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-3098-PJM)

Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 5, 1999

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nsonsa Kisala, Appellant Pro Se. Ralph Michael Smith, SHAWE &

ROSENTHAL, Baltimore, Maryland; Susan Z. Haller, JONES, DAY, REAVIS

& POGUE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Nsonsa Kisala appeals from the district court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in his employment discrimination claim. We have reviewed the record and conclude that

Kisala is unable to demonstrate that the Defendant’s proffered

legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions were pretext

for actual discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,

411 U.S. 792, 804 (1973) (providing standard); EEOC v. Clay

Printing Co., 955 F.2d 936, 941 (4th Cir. 1992) (same).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment, and deny all pending motions. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case Wo. 8,710.

#### McCOMB v. ERNEST.

[The case reported under above title in 1 Woods, 195, is the same as Case No. 3,155.]
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 10 - 00053 - CR

DAVID LEE FAIRCHILD APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 30TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- A jury found Appellant David Lee Fairchild guilty of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information with ten or more items of identifying information and assessed his punishment at thirty

- five years’ confinement. The trial court sentenced him according ly. In a single issue , Fairchild argues that Texas Penal Code section 32.51 (b

- 1)(1) is unconstitutional because it is arbitrary and irrational in its application and wrongly shifts the burden of proof to the

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

defe ndant in violation of the Sixth Amendment o f the United States Constitution. See Tex. Penal Code Ann

. § 32.51 (b

- 1)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2010). Because Fairchild did not preserve his complaint for appeal, we will affirm

. To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the specific grounds for the desired ruling if they are not apparent from the context of the request, objection, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Layton v. State , 280 S.W.3d 235, 238

– 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Further, the trial court must have ruled on the request, objection, or motion, either expressly or implicitly, or the complaining party must have objected to the trial court’s refusal to rule. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(2); Mendez v. Stat e , 138 S.W.3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). A reviewing court should not address the merits of an issue that has not been preserved for appeal. Ford v. State , 305 S.W.3d 53 0, 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Generally, constitutional errors are forfeited b y failure to object at trial. Curry v. State , 910 S.W.2d 490, 496 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); s ee Mendez , 138 S.W.3d at 342. Neither an “as applied” challenge nor a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute can be raised for the first time on ap peal. Karenev v

. State , 281 S.W

. 3d 428 , 434 ( Tex. Crim. App

. 2009 ) ( holding a defendant may not raise for the first time on appeal a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute) ; Curry , 910 S.W.2d at 496 ( holding appellant waived his vague - as a pplied challenge because he did no t specifically object at trial)

.3

Here, because Fairfield did not raise an as applied or a facial challenge to the constitutionality of pe nal code section 32.51(b

- 1)(1) in the trial court , he has not preserved this issue for our review

. See Karenev , 281 S.W

. 3d at 434 ; Curry , 910 S.W.2d at 496. Accordingly, we overrule Fairchild’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

SUE WALKER JUSTICE PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b ) DELIVERED: March 24, 2011
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

# DLA Disposition Services observes National Disability Employment Awareness Month

By Kelly BurellDLA Disposition Services

                BATTLE CREEK, Mich.  –              
October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month. Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Equal Employment Opportunity Special Emphasis Program hosted a virtual event Oct. 6. 

This year’s Persons with Disabilities Committee focused on multiple sclerosis. DLA Disposition Services employee Lisa Petch discusses her multiple sclerosis journey with Shawna Cooper, a community multiple sclerosis group leader, librarian and psychologist.

28:21VIDEO  | 28:21 |PWD Program 2021

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

## Related Stories

DLA Disposition Services observes Pride Month

DLA DSDLA DS HQDLA EEObattle creek
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of tds (Telemedine)
Inc. (the "Company"), certifies that:

     1.   The  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB of the  Company for the Quarter
          ended  September  30,  2007 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: November 14, 2007     /S/   THOMAS SCOZZAFAVA
                             -------------------------------
                                   THOMAS SCOZZAFAVA
                                   Chief Executive Officer


                             /S/    EDWARD CARROLL
                             -------------------------------
                                    EDWARD CARROLL
                                    Chief Financial Officer


This  certification  is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  contained  therein,  and not for any other
purpose.
# C_2012194EN.01002202.xml

| 30.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/22

---

Action brought on 10 April 2012 — Bolívar Cerezo v OHIM — Renovalia Energy (RENOVALIA)

(Case T-166/12)

2012/C 194/38

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Juan Bolívar Cerezo (Granada, Spain) (represented by: I.M. Barroso Sánchez-Lafuente, 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: Renovalia Energy, SA (Villarobledo, Spain)

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 First Board of Appeal of 26 January 2012 of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 663/2011-1, resulting in the registration of Community trade mark No 8 631 814‘RENOVALIA’ for ‘Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs’ in Class 36; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 26 January 2012 of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 663/2011-1, resulting in the registration of Community trade mark No 8 631 814‘RENOVALIA’ for ‘Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs’ in Class 36;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘RENOVALIA’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 25, 35, 36, 37 and 41 — application for Community trade mark No 8 631 814

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Renovalia Energy, SA

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word marks ‘RENOVA ENERGY’ and ‘RENOVAENERGY’ and trade name ‘RENOVALIA’ for services in Class 36

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: There is a likelihood of confusion between the applicant’s priority Spanish mark No 2 715 975‘RENOVALIA’ and the opposing Spanish marks. An action for annulment is to be brought before the competent Spanish national court against the opposing Spanish marks, as a result of which those marks will no longer be able to be relied on to oppose the registration of the Community trade mark applied for

Pleas in law:

---