alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
99.2   Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  In connection with the Annual Report of Nortech Systems Incorporated
(the Company) on Form 10- K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Garry M. Anderly, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (1)The Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Garry M. AnderlyGarry M. AnderlyChief Financial Officer March 29, 2003Nortech Systems Incorporated
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Big Sky Industries II, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

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



Dated: January 6, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer

Big Sky Industries II, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,275,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  186,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,698,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,261,000
<PP&E>                                       3,449,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,291,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,157,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,469,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    32,352,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,157,000
<SALES>                                      3,207,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,207,000
<CGS>                                        4,775,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,775,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,520,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,411,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             109,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,608,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (11,611,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 60,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,551,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.39)


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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          11,116
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   450
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     36,151
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          77,952
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            79,120
<LOANS>                                        146,296
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 245,053
<DEPOSITS>                                     207,494
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,608
<LONG-TERM>                                      8,145
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           939
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,867
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 245,053
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,204
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,697
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   240
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                18,140
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,443
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,697
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      283
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  27
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,362
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,221
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,221
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,870
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.92
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                        492
<LOANS-PAST>                                       185
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,359
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      186
<RECOVERIES>                                        28
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Reynaldo GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-916.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 27, 1977.

J. Edward Worton, Key West, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Ira N. Loewy and Jose R. Rodriguez, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Holman v. State,*347 So.2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30842

Conference Calendar

 

BUFORD ANTHONY DUPUY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1137

- - - - - - - - - -

August 18, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Buford Anthony Dupuy (#78540) has given notice of his appeal

from the district court’s judgment dismissing his federal habeas

petition. Prior to filing his notice of appeal, Dupuy sent the

district court a letter requesting reconsideration of the

judgment. See instrument 30. The district court has taken no

action on Dupuy’s letter. Because Dupuy’s letter calls into

question the correctness of the judgment and was filed within 10

days of entry of the judgment, it is a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 
No. 97-30842

-2-

motion. See Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784

F.2d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc); see also Houston v.

Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4),

Dupuy’s notice of appeal is ineffective until the date of entry

of an order disposing of the Rule 59(e) motion. Accordingly, the

appeal is DISMISSED. See Burt v. Ware, 14 F.3d 256, 260-61 (5th

Cir. 1994). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e C ha r l e s R . B r e y e r , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** N or the rn D i s tr i c tof

C a l i f orni a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T LA RRY J O N ES, a /k / aV ERN O N J O N ES, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. M . K R A M E R , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 55415 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 0 0 9 - R- J CR ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a nue l L . R e a l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J une 7, 2010 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: T R O T T and W . F L E T C H E R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and B R E Y E R , D i stri ct Judg e. ** T he C a l i f

orni aC our tof

A ppe a l de t e rm i ne d a s a n a l t e rna t i ve gr ound f or af fi rm i ng Jones’ s c on vi ct i on that“ [d] ef endantcann othave suff er ed prej ud i ce , even if th e r e a r e m a te r ia ls in [ O f f ic e r ] T ap ia ’s f

ile b e a r in g o n h e rc r e d ib ility th a t s h o u ld



# FI LED AU G 05 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

have been di sc l osed [pri or t o tri al ] . ” O ur re vi ew of the re cord dem on stra t es that th is h o ld in g w a s n o t ( 1 ) “c o n tr a ry to , o r. . . a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d f

e d e r a l la w , a s d e te rm in e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s ,” or (2) “ base d o n a un re as on abl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i gh tof the evi dence pres ent ed i n the S t at e c ou rtproceedi ng . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1) and (2). T he re cord al so dem on stra t es thatthe al l eged di sc ov ery and di sc l osure v io la tio n s d id n o t h a v e as u b s ta n tia l a n d in ju r io u s e f

f e c t o rin f lu e n c e in d e te rm in in g th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t. S e e B r e c h t v . A b r a h a m s o n , 5 0 7 U .S . 6 1 9 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . G i ve n ( 1) the pe r c i pi e ntdi r e c tt e s t i m ony of O f f i c e rB ar i l l a s , O f

f i c e rD a di s ho, a nd O ff icerM o ra (w h ich co rr o b o ra ted th e tes ti m o n y o f O ff icerT ap ia), (2 ) J o n es ’s coun se l ’ s argum entt o the j ury thatT api a’ s t es t i m on y abo utw hatshe s aw and w hat s he c oul d nots e e w a s “ abs ol ut e l y a nd c om pl e t e l y hone s t , ” a nd ( 3) the t e s t i m ony aboutthe r e s pe c t i ve r ol e s of the “ de a l e r ” a nd the “ hook” i n the s e ki nds of drug sa l es , the evi dence agai nstJones w as subst ant i al l y c om pel l i ng and m ore than s u f f ic ie n t to s u s ta in th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t. AF F I R ME D.
No.44432.

#### Protests 969149-G, etc., of E. W. J. Hearty, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that 10 percent allowance should have been made for the weight of the gelatinous material in question.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1331 

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to change the date of 

implementation of country of origin labeling to January 30, 2006. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 29, 2005 

Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. ENZI, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. 

BURNS, Mr. THUNE, Mr. BINGAMAN, and Mr. BAUCUS) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to change 

the date of implementation of country of origin labeling 

to January 30, 2006.

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LA4 BELING. 

5 Section 285 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 

6 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638d) is amended by striking ‘‘Sep7 tember 30, 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘January 30, 2006’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT
32.1
  
  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Multi Solutions, Inc., a New Jersey
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Jerome Goubeaux, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to
the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company, and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 
 /s/ Jerome
      GoubeauxJerome
      GoubeauxChief
      Executive OfficerOctober
      21, 2008
### HUNTSMAN CORPORATION HUNGARY

ANALYTICAL LABORATORY

GC REPORT
#### Susie Trammell WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 76-1017 and 76-1018.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 1, 1977.

Edward R. Kirkland, Orlando, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Marsha G. Madorsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This court is of the opinion that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions of the appellant, Susie Trammell Wilson, on two charges of aiding and assisting in conducting a lottery. The evidence was specifically lacking as to the existence of any actual lottery with which Wilson was connected. See *Holliday v. State,*104 So.2d *85137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958) and *Sagonias v. State,*89 So.2d 252 (Fla.1956). Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are hereby reversed.

MAGER, C. J., and ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
122 STAT. 5010 PUBLIC LAW 110–445—OCT. 21, 2008 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6847: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

Sept. 24, 25, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 30, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–445 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 801 Industrial 

Boulevard in Ellijay, Georgia, as the ‘‘First Lieutenant Noah Harris Ellijay Post 

Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FIRST LIEUTENANT NOAH HARRIS ELLIJAY POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 801 Industrial Boulevard in Ellijay, Georgia, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘First Lieutenant Noah 

Harris Ellijay Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘First Lieutenant Noah Harris Ellijay Post Office Building’’. 

Approved October 21, 2008. 

Oct. 21, 2008 

[H.R. 6847] 


bjneal on POFP91QD1 with PUBLAWS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD VAN HOOK,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

STATE OF IDAHO; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 35875

D.C. No. 1:19

- cv

- 00170

- BLW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2 , 2020 * *

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Ronald Van Hook appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising

out of family court proceedings . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo a dismissal for failur e to state a claim under Federal Rule of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 35875

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d

1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Van Hook’s action because Van Hook

failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler

,

627 F.3d 338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally

construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim) ; see,

e.g ., West v. Atkins , 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (a § 1983 claim requires a violation of

a constitutional right “c ommitted by a person acting under color of state law” );

Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman , 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (the

Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a non

- consenting state) ; Garmon v. County

of Los Angeles , 828 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2016) (state prosecutors are

“absolutely immune from § 1983 actions when performing functions intimately

associated with the judicial phase of the crim inal process” (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted)); Brantley v. NBC Universal, Inc. , 675 F.3d 1192, 1197

(9th Cir. 2012) (elements of claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1 ); Duspiva v. Fillmore , 293

P.3d 651, 656 ( Idaho 2013) ( defining unfair competition u nder Idaho’s Consumer

Protection Act ).

We reject as meritless Van Hook’s contentions that the district court did not

consider his evidence or other filings in the case.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued3 19

- 35875

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending requests and motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### Russell THOMPSON v. CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, Alabama.

Civ. 1012.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 1977.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1977.

Mark B. Poison, Birmingham, for appellant.

L. Murray Alley and James L. Birchall, Birmingham, for appellee.

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

Thompson appeals from denial of petition for issuance of statutory writ of certiorari. We affirm.

The only issue raised by this appeal is whether a writ of certiorari may be granted by a circuit judge of Jefferson County directed to the Family Court of Jefferson County under authority of Title 13, Sec. 184, *Code of Alabama (1940).*

Succinctly stated the disputed issue on appeal arose as follows: Judgment dismissing a petition filed by Thompson was entered by the Family Court of Jefferson County, Alabama on July 23, 1976; Thompson did not appeal therefrom within the time permitted by statute (Title 62, Sec. 307); Thompson subsequently filed petition for writ of certiorari in the Jefferson County Circuit Court seeking a trial de novo under Title 13, Sec. 184 of the Code; after hearing and submission of memorandum of law, certiorari was denied.

This court has previously discussed at length the meaning and effect of Title 13, Sec. 184. *Walker v. Kilborn,*46 Ala. App. 695, 248 So.2d 736 (1971). We discussed and cited therein cases previously decided by the Alabama Supreme Court interpreting the same statute. *Jefferson County*v. *Berkshire Development Corp.,*277 Ala. 170, 168 So.2d 13 (1964); *Birmingham Realty Co. v. City of Birmingham,*205 Ala. 278, 87 So. 840 (1921). The briefs of the parties in this case indicate they are *1361aware of our decision and those of the Supreme Court. Appellant submits that these cases all misinterpret Sec. 184 of Title 13 and should be overruled. We have no authority to overrule the decisions of the Supreme Court and we have no inclination to change our own.

We consider there is no useful purpose to be served by restating the principles of *Walker v. Kilborn, supra.*We therefore affirm the judgment below.

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA 60th Anniversary Shout Out: Phyllis Copeland

By DLA Public Affairs

                NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa.  –              
DLA 60th Anniversary Shout Out: Phyllis Copeland, DLA Distribution Norfolk, sends a shout out to DLA for the 60th Anniversary.

00:21VIDEO  | 00:21 |DLA 60th Anniversary Shout Out: Phyllis Copeland, DLA Distribution Norfolk

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLADistributionDLA 60th AnniversaryDLA 60th Anniversary Distributionshoutout