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

# DLA Land and Maritime leaders spread holiday cheer

DLA Land and Maritime Public Affairs

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
The Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime leadership team welcomed hundreds of associates to the DLA Land and Maritime Operations Center command suite for a Holiday Open House Dec. 13.

The suite was transformed into a winter wonderland filled with holiday wreaths, trees, lights, garland and more. Associates enjoyed the festive environment while chatting with DLA Land and Maritime Commander Army Brig. Gen. Gail Atkins, Deputy Commander Kenneth Watson, Acting Acquisition Executive Doug Nevins and Director of Operations Todd Lewis.

After visiting with leadership, associates were treated to light refreshments, photos with Santa and a holiday card signed by the command team.

A photo gallery from the event is available on the DLA Today internal website (CAC/PIV-enabled).

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Land and MaritimeDSCCholiday open house
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1412 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1412

To prohibit the merger, acquisition, or takeover of Unocal Corporation 
                        by CNOOC Ltd. of China.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 15, 2005

  Mr. Dorgan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the merger, acquisition, or takeover of Unocal Corporation 
                        by CNOOC Ltd. of China.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) Oil and natural gas resources are strategic assets 
        critical to national security and the Nation's economic 
        prosperity.
            (2) The National Security Strategy of the United States 
        approved by President George W. Bush on September 17, 2002, 
        concludes that the People's Republic of China remains strongly 
        committed to national one-party rule by the Communist Party.
            (3) On June 23, 2005, the China National Offshore Oil 
        Corporation Limited (CNOOC), announced its intent to acquire 
        Unocal Corporation, in the face of a competing bid for Unocal 
        Corporation from Chevron Corporation.
            (4) The People's Republic of China owns approximately 70 
        percent of CNOOC.
            (5) A significant portion of the CNOOC acquisition is to be 
        financed and heavily subsidized by banks owned by the People's 
        Republic of China.
            (6) Unocal Corporation is based in the United States, and 
        has approximately 1,750,000,000 barrels of oil equivalent, with 
        its core operating areas in Southeast Asia, Alaska, Canada, and 
        the lower 48 States.
            (7) A CNOOC acquisition of Unocal Corporation would result 
        in the strategic assets of Unocal Corporation being 
        preferentially allocated to China by the Chinese Government.
            (8) A Chinese Government acquisition of Unocal Corporation 
        would weaken the ability of the United States to influence the 
        oil and gas supplies of the Nation through companies that must 
        adhere to United States laws.
            (9) As a de facto matter, the Chinese Government would not 
        allow the United States Government or United States investors 
        to acquire a controlling interest in a Chinese energy company.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SALE OF UNOCAL TO CNOOC.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the merger, 
acquisition, or takeover of Unocal Corporation by CNOOC is prohibited.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

Certification  Pursuant  to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. ss.1350)

I,  Thomas W.  Martin,  Chief  Operating  Officer  and Chief  Financial  Officer
(Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) of ICON Capital Corp., the General
Partner of the Registrant in connection with the Quarterly Report of ICON Income
Fund Eight B L.P.  (the  "Partnership")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31,  2006,  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof  (the  "Quarterly  Report")  certify,  pursuant  to  Section  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

1.   The Quarterly  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78m); and

2.   The information  contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents,  in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Partnership.


Dated: May 15, 2006

/s/ Thomas W. Martin
------------------------
Thomas W. Martin
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
ICON Capital Corp.
General Partner of ICON Income Fund Eight B L.P.
January 26, 1939

No. 40571.

#### Protest 872387-G of Eimer & Amend.

C. D. 64. Application by Government denied.
#### United States *v.*Nicholas Gal

No. 6022.

Invoices dated Teningen, Germany, April 18, 1936, etc.

Certified April 22, 1936, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 5, 1936, etc.

Entry No. 835935, etc.

Third Division, Appellate Term

(Decided June 5, 1944)

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*special attorney), for the appellant.

*Eugene R. Pickrell (Eugene R. Chase*of counsel) for the appellee.

Before Cline, Keefe, and Ekwall, Judges

CliNe, Judge:

This is an application for review of the decision of the trial court in *Nicholas Gal*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 5948, covering 7 appeals to reappraisement which were consolidated for trial.

The parties entered into a stipulation before this Division agreeing, subj ect to the approval of the court, that the cases shall be remanded to the trial judge for further consideration.

In conformity with the terms of the stipulation,‘the cases are hereby remanded to the court below for a new trial. ,
No. 00-6809.

#### Trainer *v.*Stills.

Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4931

RICKY JEROME BRANTLEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.

(CR-02-87-BO)

Submitted: June 12, 2003

Decided: June 19, 2003

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Ricky Jerome Brantley appeals his conviction and sentence after he

pled guilty to carjacking and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 2119(2), 2 (2000), and aggravated sexual abuse and aiding

and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a)(1), 2 (2000). His

attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but

raising the issue of whether Brantley received ineffective assistance

of counsel based upon counsel’s failure to correctly inform Brantley

of the sentence he would receive, and counsel’s failure to object to the

introduction of a victim impact letter at sentencing. Brantley was

advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not

filed a brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295

(4th Cir. 1997). Rather, to allow for adequate development of the

record, a defendant must bring his claim in a motion under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). See id.; United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th

Cir. 1994). An exception exists when the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. See King, 119 F.3d at 295. We find that

the record in the instant case does not conclusively establish that

Brantley’s counsel was ineffective. Therefore, we do not address this

issue on direct appeal. Brantley may assert his claim in a § 2255

motion, if he so chooses. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Brantley’s convictions and sentence. This court requires

that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave

to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on the client. 

2 UNITED STATES v. BRANTLEY
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

UNITED STATES v. BRANTLEY 3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21930]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3846-000]


Virginia Electric and Power Company; Notice of Filing

August 13, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 24, 1997, Virginia Electric and Power 
Company (Virginia Power) tendered for filing nine Service Agreements 
for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service with The Wholesale Power 
Group under the Open Access Transmission Tariff to Eligible Purchasers 
dated July 9, 1996. Under the tendered Service Agreement Virginia Power 
will provide firm point-to-point service to The Wholesale Power Group 
as agreed to by the parties under the rates, terms and conditions of 
the Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Copies of the filing were served upon the Virginia State 
Corporation Commission, and the North Carolina Utilities Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before August 26, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21930 Filed 8-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 74-6347.

#### Belle *v.*MacDoniels.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANTO SENTOSO; ELLYNA

TJONDROWALUJO,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73641

Agency Nos. A096-362-853

 A072-865-160

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 25, 2011** 

Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Manto Sentoso and Ellyna Tjondrowalujo, natives and citizens of Indonesia,

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing

their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications

for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against

FILED

OCT 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73641

Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 &

n.1 (1992). “Whether the IJ complied with the BIA’s four procedural requirements

for a frivolousness finding is a question of law we review de novo.” Liu v. Holder,

640 F.3d 918, 928 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review. 

The agency’s conclusion that petitioners knowingly filed frivolous asylum

applications is supported by a preponderance of the evidence in light of petitioners’

admission that Sentoso filed an asylum application containing false statements in

2003 and petitioners failed to correct the misstatements during their interview

before the Asylum Officer. See Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 918 (9th Cir.

2008). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claims fail.

Even if petitioners testified credibly, substantial evidence supports the

agency’s finding that the beating and robberies Sentoso suffered, and the sexual

harassment and robbery of Tjondrowalujo, do not rise to the level of persecution. 

See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, the

record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners have a clear probability of

future persecution, even under a disfavored group analysis, because they have not

demonstrated they would be singled out for harm. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d

971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009). The record also does not compel the conclusion that
3 08-73641

there is a pattern or practice of persecution of Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See

Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-62. Accordingly, petitioners’ withholding of removal

claim fails.

Finally, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not

supported by argument are deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
OEPARTMENT OF 

- [RA?^SPQRlAnON - -

nOCKi:T OPERATIONS 

m i m !3 P !• 5b 

?r?-^^fe^:^c^&
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21941]



[[Page 44119]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP96-302-007]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

August 13, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 7, 1997, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet:
    3rd Substitute 3rd Revised Sheet No. 291
    Northern states that the above sheet addresses Northern's penalty 
provisions and is being filed in compliance with the Commission's 
Letter Order issued July 23, 1997 in Docket No. RP96-302-006.
    Northern states that copies of the filing were served upon the 
company's customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C., 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. All 
protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken in this proceeding, but will not serve 
to make protestant a party to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21941 Filed 8-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3
 H. A. Simons Ltd.
                                                                    Mining Group

111 Dunsmuir Street, Suite 400
Vancouver, B. C. Canada V6B 5W3
604-664-4827
Telex 04-51150
Fax 604-664-3301


February 13, 1997



Echo Bay Mines Ltd.
6400 S. Fiddler's Green Circle
Suite 1000
Englewood, CO  80111

Dear Sirs:

We refer to the report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996
of Echo Bay Mines Ltd. proposed to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. We hereby consent to the references to our firm and the use of
summaries from our report dated November 14, 1996 in such 10-K in "Business and
Properties--Reserves", "--Other Mineralization" and "--Construction Programs--
Aquarius/Paredones Amarillos." We also consent to the incorporation by
reference of such reference and summaries in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 33-77738) and related prospectus of Echo Bay Mines Ltd.
and Echo Bay Resources, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 2-84687)
pertaining to the Employee Share Incentive Plan of Echo Bay Mines Ltd. and the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-91696) pertaining to the Director Equity
Plan and amending the Employee Share Incentive Plan of Echo Bay Mines Ltd.

We also confirm to you that we have read such Form 10-K and have no reason to
believe that there is any misrepresentation in the information contained
therein that is derived from our report or known to us as a result of
preparing such report.



Yours truly,
H. A. SIMONS LTD.


/s/  Brian McEwen

Brian McEwen
Chief Geologist
Mining Group
#### Clifford LEWIS v. Elvin NICHOLS and New York Fire and Marine Underwriters, Incorporated.

No. 61370.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1978.

In re: Clifford Lewis applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
No. 99-1310.

#### Hammer *v.*Immigration and Naturalization Service.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-2000
<CASH>                                          15,772
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,795
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     28,910
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                88,061
<PP&E>                                          53,607
<DEPRECIATION>                                (25,898)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 125,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,014
<BONDS>                                         13,705
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,868
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,046)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   125,901
<SALES>                                        169,206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               169,206
<CGS>                                          130,056
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  130,056
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,548
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (591)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (942)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                351
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       351
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>