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

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA Troop Support commences Senior Leader Strategic Planning session

By Michael HongDLA Troop Support Public Affairs

                PHILADELPHIA  –              
Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support kicked off a two-day Senior Leader Strategic Planning Session today in Philadelphia. The event began with McKinsey & Company, a New York-based global management consulting firm, presenting about industry trends and market conditions followed by an interactive discussion on growing business. Breakout discussions were also held on the topics of: emotional intelligence; and understanding and managing conflict. 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STERLING
DRILLING FUND 1983-1 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          87,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,874
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               182,075
<PP&E>                                       9,449,224
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,808,432)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,822,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,822,867<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,822,867
<SALES>                                        361,155<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               361,155
<CGS>                                          340,637
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  340,637
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,518
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Other-Se is composed of partnership equity.
<F2>Sales - The sales line includes $6,200 of interest income
<F3>EPS-Primary is based upon limited partners share of net income divided by the
outstanding partnership units of 11,077
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                             110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,286
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,482
<INVENTORY>                                     98,798
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               197,965
<PP&E>                                          66,297
<DEPRECIATION>                                  93,624
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 336,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,270
<BONDS>                                        104,585
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,349
<OTHER-SE>                                     142,172
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   336,965
<SALES>                                        571,063
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               571,063
<CGS>                                          460,779
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  460,779
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                80,890
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,138
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,298
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,096
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,837
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,259
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,259
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.53
        

</TABLE>
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-60217

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DENNIS R. PADEN,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:88CR00068LN

_________________________________________________________________

August 8, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dennis R. Paden, # 47044-079, challenges his conviction and

sentence on the basis that the district court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction. The statute setting forth the offense to which he

pleaded guilty, 18 U.S.C. § 844(I), is not unconstitutional. See

Russell v. United States, 471 U.S. 858 (1985); United States v.
-2-

Shively, 927 F.2d 804, 807-09 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S.

1209 (1991). The defendant’s contention that the government

manufactured or withheld evidence is frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of Nathalia Brown, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered June 3, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendant demonstrated that it had not received the requested verification and, thus, that plaintiff's action is premature (<a href="../2005/2005_09484.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.</i>, 24 AD3d 492</a> [2005]). However, as plaintiff further argues, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]). In view of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether this action is premature (<a href="../2015/2015_51776.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co.</i>, 49 Misc 3d 152</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: August 11, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2423 

To suspend temporarily the duty on nightlights of plastic. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on nightlights of plastic. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN NIGHTLIGHTS OF PLASTIC. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new headings: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Nightlights of plastic base 

material (provided for in 

subheading 9405.40.80) ... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2423 IS

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

3 (c) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—Notwithstanding 

4 section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) 

5 or any other provision of law, upon proper request filed 

6 with U.S. Customs and Border Protection before the 90th 

7 day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry, 

8 or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, of any ar9 ticle— 

10 (1) that was made on or after January 1, 2011, 

11 and before the 15th day after the date of the enact12 ment of this Act, and 

13 (2) with respect to which there would have been 

14 no duty if the amendment made by subsection (a) 

15 applied to such entry or withdrawal, 

16 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if such amendment 

17 applied to such entry or withdrawal. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            376,507
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  56,806,579
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (380,000)
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        0
<PP&E>                                            426,513
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (316,494)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 60,294,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          47,410,598
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                       12,884,026
<OTHER-SE>                                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   60,294,624
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                6,602,397
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,567,971
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              3,367,907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   226,323
<INCOME-TAX>                                       13,571
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               212,752
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      212,752
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .12



</TABLE>
#### Hewitt *v.*Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant.

*Negligence*— Damages—Husband *and wife--Services of wife.*

Recovery by a husband for the loss of the services of his wife includes not only services in the ordinary sense of the word but the assistance and comfort which under the circumstances he would receive from her; and the recovery for his loss is not limited to the period before suit was commenced.

Argued April 25, 1910.

Appeal, No. 230, Jan. T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Erie Co., Nov. T., 1907, No. 78, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Edwin L. Hewitt and Yilettie A. Hewitt, his wife, each suing in his or her own right, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

*398May 24, 1910:

Before Fell, C. J., Mestrezat, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Walling, P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

Verdict and judgment for Edwin L. Hewitt for $2,924 and for Vilettie A. Hewitt for $5,000. Defendant appealed.

*Errors assigned*were various instructions as to damages.

*J. Boss Thompson*and *U. P. Bossiter,*of *Thompson, Bossiter & Thompson,*for appellant.

*I. B. Brown,*with him *O. T. Kincaid,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

This was an action by a husband and wife to recover damages sustained by reason of the injury of the latter, while a passenger in the defendant’s car. There was no denial of liability, and the only subject of dispute was the amount of damages which each of the plaintiffs had sustained. The measure of damages was somewhat complicated by proof of the ill health of the wife before the accident, which created a doubt as to the extent to which her physical condition at the trial was due to the injuries sustained while in the car. But this question and all others that arose were submitted to the jury in a charge of exceptional clearness and precision, in which the recovery by either of the plaintiffs was limited to damages shown by the weight of the testimony to have resulted from the accident. Recovery by a husband for the loss of the services of his wife, includes not only services in the ordinary sense of the word but the assistance and comfort which under the circumstances he would receive from her: Kelley v. Mayberry Twp., 154 Pa. 440, and the recovery for his loss is not limited to the period before suit was commenced: Readdy v. Shamokin Borough, 137 Pa. 98.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Lawrence RYAN, Appellant, v. MAZDA CORPORATION, etc., Beck-Arnley Corporation of Florida, etc., d/b/a Semperit South East and Dinsmore Tire Center, Inc., etc., d/b/a Dinsmore Tire Co., Appellees.

No. 76-2531.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 21, 1978.

Rehearing Denied March 28, 1978.

Michael J. Ryan of Ryan & Taylor, North Palm Beach, for appellant.

Scott A. DiSalvo of Carey, Dwyer, Cole, Selwood & Bernard, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Mazda.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant-plaintiff, Lawrence Ryan, appeals summary final judgment entered in favor of appellee, Mazda Corporation, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries. We reverse.

Appellant-Ryan was the owner of a 1973 automobile manufactured by Mazda Corporation. On March 20, 1974, Ryan was severely injured as a result of a one-car accident when the car he was driving, without warning flipped over several times. Subsequent investigation of the accident revealed the existence of a large hole in the side wall of the left front tire on the automobile. The tire was manufactured by third-party defendant, Semperit Aktiangesellschaft, and had been recently mounted on Ryan’s automobile by defendant, Dinsmore Tire Center, Inc. The tire was not original equipment on the automobile. Neither the manufacturer, the distributor, nor the importer, Beck-Arnley Corporation, of the tire are parties to the instant appeal.

The post-accident investigation revealed that a tie rod stud on the Mazda automobile had failed. In his amended complaint, Ryan sought recovery from Mazda based upon an allegation of defective design and/or manufacture of the tie rod stud in particular, and of the automobile in general. Ryan obtained the services of an expert witness who examined the material parts of the automobile. At deposition, Ryan’s expert witness testified that in his opinion there was no evidence of any defect in manufacture of the tie rod stud.

Subsequently, Mazda moved for summary judgment which, after hearing was grant*24ed, and summary final judgment entered in favor of Mazda. This appeal then followed.

Summary judgment may properly be granted only where the moving party has successfully met his burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. *Holl v. Talcott,*191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the evidence and all permissible inferences drawn therefrom must be cast in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. *Holl v. Talcott,*supra.

In the instant case, appellant has through his pleadings raised issues as to the design of the tie rod stud and of the automobile that have not been negated. Accordingly, the summary final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.

Reversed and remanded.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                           Subsidiaries of the Company
                                  June 30, 2001

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                            State of
Company                                                                                   Incorporation
-------                                                                                   -------------
<S>                                                                                       <C>
flightserv.com                                                                              Delaware

Travel Depot & Cruises, Inc.                                                                Georgia

Internet Aviation Services Limited, Inc.                                                    Nevada

DM Marketing, Inc.                                                                          Delaware

Avenel Ventures, Inc.                                                                       Nevada

Avenel Alliance, Inc.                                                                       Florida

LST, Inc.                                                                                   Delaware

Logisoft Computer Products, Corp.                                                           New York

eStorefronts.net, Inc.                                                                      New York

Westside Investors, Inc.                                                                    Georgia

P&W Stonebridge, LLC                                                                        Georgia

P&W Headland, LLC                                                                           Georgia

PDK, Inc.                                                                                   Georgia

Stratos Inns, LLC                                                                           Georgia

Regional Developers, Inc.                                                                   Florida

Capital First, Inc.                                                                         Georgia
</TABLE>


                                       47