alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Army Colonel Ben Kilgore

### Chief of Staff, DLA Energy

### 

### 

Army Colonel Benjamin L. Kilgore currently serves at the Chief of Staff for Defense Logistics Agency Energy located at Fort Belvoir, VA. He was born in Winter Park, Florida, and raised in Cincinnati, Ohio. After graduating from Miami University in 2001, COL Kilgore commissioned as an Air Defense Artillery (ADA) Officer. He is a graduate of the ADA Officer Basic Course, the Combined Logistics Officer Advanced Course, Airborne School, the Command and General Staff College, and the Army War College (AWC).

Prior to attending the AWC, he was assigned to Army Futures Command, where he served as the Assistant Chief of Staff G4 for Joint Modernization Command at Fort Bliss, Texas. Previous non-command assignments include service as an ADA Launcher Platoon Leader, Battery Executive Officer, and Battalion S4 with 3-43 ADA at Fort Bliss, Texas; Battalion S4 with the 525th Military Police Battalion in support of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Deputy Support Operations Officer, 173rd Airborne Brigade, Bamberg, Germany; G3 Chief of Operations, 3d Expeditionary Sustainment Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky; Battalion Executive Officer for Army Field Support Battalion-Drum, Fort Drum, New York; Logistics Support Team Chief with duty at Fort Irwin, California, 404th Army Field Support Brigade; and Professor of Military Science with duty at North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota.

COL Kilgore commanded at both the company and battalion level. His company command occurred from 2007-2009 with the Forward Support Troop, 1-91 Cavalry Regiment (Airborne), 173rd Airborne Brigade, located in Schweinfurt, Germany. During this assignment, he deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. In 2019, COL Kilgore took command of the Army Field Support Battalion-Hawaii, located at Schofield Barracks, with direct support to the 25th Infantry Division.

He holds a Master of Arts in Strategic Studies from the AWC, a Master of Arts in Higher Education Administration from the University of Louisville and a Masters in Managerial Logistics from North Dakota State University. His decorations and awards include the Bronze Star Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC), the Meritorious Service Medal with 6 OLC, the Army Commendation Medal with 5 OLC, the Army Achievement Medal with OLC, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Parachutist Badge, and the Combat Action Badge. The Air Defense Artillery branch also inducted COL Kilgore into the Honorable Order of Saint Barbara.
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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 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 FR AN CI SC A ENRI QU EZ - DE PE RE Z, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 70719 A ge nc yN o. A 200- 048- 945 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M a y25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F r a nc i s c aE nr i que z - de P e r e z , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of E l S a l va dor , pe t i t i ons for r evi ew of a B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s orderdi sm i ss i ng her app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( C A T ) . W e ha ve 

# FI LED JU N 04 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew fa ctual fi nd i ng s f or subst ant i al e v id e n c e , Sa ntos-L em us v. Mukasey , 542 F . 3d 738, 742 ( 9th C i r . 2008) , a nd de ny th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the B oa r d’ s de ni a l of a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of re m ov al because pet i t i on erfa i l ed t o sho w her a l l eged perse cut ors threa t ened her on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed grou nd . H erfe arof future pers ec ut i on base d o n an actual or i m pu t ed ant i -gang o r ant i -c ri m e opi ni on i s noton ac coun tof the prot ec t ed g r o u n do f

e ith e rm e m b e r s h ip in ap a rtic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p o rp o litic a l o p in io n . R am os B arri os v. H

older , 5 8 1 F .3 d8 4 9 , 8 5 4 - 5 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ; Santos -L e m us , 5 4 2 F .3 da t 7 4 5 - 4 6 ; s e e O c h a v e v . I NS , 254 F . 3d 859, 865 ( 9th C i r . 2001) (“ A sy l um general l y i s notavai l abl e t o v i ct i m s of c i vi l stri fe , un l es s they are si ng l ed ou ton ac coun tof a prot ec t ed grou nd . ”) S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e a l s o s upport s the B oa r d’ s de ni a l of C A T r e l i e f

ba s e d on the B oa r d’ s f

i ndi ng tha tpe t i t i one rdi d note s t abl i s h al i ke l i hood of t ortur e by , a tthe i nst i gat i on of, or w i th the consentor ac qu i es ce nce of the E l S al vado ran g o v e rn m e n t. See A rteaga v. Mukasey , 51 1 F . 3d94 0, 94 8-49 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We have issued our reportdated August 8, 2005 accompanying the consoli­dated financial statementsand schedule of Ault Incorporated and subsidiaries which are included in theAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 29, 2005. Wehereby consent to the incorporation by refer­ence of said report in theRegistration Statements of Ault Incorporated and subsidiaries on Form S-3,File No. 333-100409(effective October 8, 2002) and on Forms S-8, File No. 333-112103(effective January 22, 2004), No. 333-51458 (effective December 7,2000), No. 333-91389 (effective November 22, 1999), No. 333-08992(effective October 22, 1997), No. 333-38455 (effective October 22,1997), No. 333-04609 (effective May 28, 1996), No. 033-53988(effective November 2, 1992), No. 033-33566 (effective February 20,1990), No. 033-19662 (effective January 15, 1988), and No. 002-87376(effective November 14, 1983).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Minneapolis, MinnesotaOctober 5, 2005

65

----
- - - - - F o r w a r d e d b y B r i a n S h r a g e r / R T P / U SEP A

/ U S o n 0 2 / 1 8 / 2 011 0 3 : 0 6 P M

- - - --

F r o m : B r i a n S h r ag e r / R T P / U SEPA

/ U S

T o : " H i gg i n s

, C o r t n e y " < C o r

t n e y

_ Hi gg i n s @ o m b

. e op

. g o v>

C c : R ob e r t J W a y l an d / R T P / U SEPA / U S

, J i m E dd i ng e r

/ R T P / U SEPA

/ U S @ EP A

, T o m W a l t o n / R T P / U SEP A / U S @ EPA

, A m y L a m s o n / R T P / U SEP A / U S @ EPA

, T h o m a s G i l l i s / DC / U SEP A / U S @ EP A

D a t e : 02 / 1 1 / 201 1 0 2 : 3 1 P M

S ub j e c t: O M B S u b m i t t a l B o i l e r R I A r e v i s i o n

C o r t n e y

,

A tt a c h e d i s t h e r e v i s e d R I A

, b o t h i n t r a c k c hang e s a n d a c l e an v e r s i on

. A no t ab l e c hang e i n t h e R I A i s t h e i n c l u s i on o f F R F A f o r e a c h r e g

. T h e

R I A w i ll und e r g o do c u m en t p r e pa r a t i on / c l e anu p n e x t w ee k a f t e r w e

an t i c i pa t e n o f u r

t h e r c hang e s

, bu t i t i s r e ad y f o r s u b s t an t i v e r e v i e w ( e x c e p t f o r t h e e m p l o y m en t s e c t i o n

, w h i c h w e w i ll g e t t o y ou ASAP )

.

T han k s !

B r i a n

( S ee a tt a c h e d f i l e : B o i l e r R I A __2_1 1 _11

_

t r c k c hng e s v 2

. do c x )( S e e

a tt a c h e d f i l e : B o il e r R I A

_ _ 2_11_ 1 1_ c l e an

. do c x )
#### Helio CASAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1299.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 6, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 14, 1978.

*27Alvin E. Entin, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Steven R. Jacob, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, NATHAN and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The single point presented on this appeal urges error upon the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress certain evidence seized at the time of defendant’s arrest. Defendant urges (1) that the court erroneously failed to rule upon the motion because the court considered it untimely filed, and (2) that the motion should have been granted. The record conclusively refutes both positions. The judgment and sentences are affirmed. See *State v. Parnell,*221 So.2d 129 (Fla.1969), concerning the “clear view” doctrine; and *Sessions v. State,*213 So.2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), concerning search and seizure incident to arrest.

Affirmed.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21209]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. OA97-629-000]

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation; Notice of Filing

August 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 9, 1997, Wisconsin Public Service 
Corporation (WPSC) of Green Bay, Wisconsin, submitted for filing its 
compliance open-access transmission tariff in compliance with the 
Commission's Order No. 888-A. WPSC requests a July 14, 1996, effective 
date.
    WPSC states that this filing has been posted in accordance with the 
Commission's Regulations and that copies of the filing have been served 
upon WPSC's wholesale customers, the Wisconsin Public Service 
Commission, the Michigan Public Service Commission, and all persons 
listed on the official service lists in Docket Nos. ER95-1528-000, 
ER96-1088-000, and OA96-79-000.
    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, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 or 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 18, 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. 97-21209 Filed 8-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Melvin B. THOMAS.

No. 60403.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 27, 1977.

Edwin Dunahoe, Thomas & Dunahoe, Natchitoches, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ronald C. Martin, Dist. Atty., Eric R. Harrington, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 3979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2188]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 1997 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 3979]]

                Presidential Determination No. 97-13 of December 27, 
                1996

                
Determination Pursuant to Section 2(c)(1) of the 
                Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as 
                Amended

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Pursuant to sections 2(c)(1) of the Migration and 
                Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 
                2601(c)(1), I hereby determine that it is important to 
                the national interest that up to $38,000,000 be made 
                available from the United States Emergency Refugee and 
                Migration Assistance Fund to meet the urgent and 
                unexpected needs of refugees and migrants.

                These funds may be used to meet the urgent and 
                unexpected needs of refugees, victims of conflict, and 
                other persons at risk in the Great Lakes region of 
                Africa. These funds may be used on a multilateral or 
                bilateral basis as appropriate to provide contributions 
                to international organizations, private voluntary 
                organizations, governments, and other governmental and 
                nongovernmental agencies, as appropriate.

                You are authorized and directed to inform the 
                appropriate committees of the Congress of this 
                determination and the obligation of funds under this 
                authority and to publish this memorandum in the Federal 
                Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, December 27, 1996.

[FR Doc. 97-2188
Filed 1-27-97; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-M
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 4, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

132883(85) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

SUSAN C. CHILDERS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 132883 

v COA: 272806 

WCAC: 04-000464 

LEAR AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS and 

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, the request by defendants-appellants that their 

motion for reconsideration be withdrawn is considered and the motion is DISMISSED 

with prejudice and without costs. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 4, 2007 

 Clerk
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the amended Annual Report of Miracor Diagnostics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, M.
Lee Hulsebus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
USC ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003,
that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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/ M. Lee Hulsebus
                                                       -----------------------
                                                       M. Lee Hulsebus, Chief
                                                       Executive Officer

Dated: March 27, 2006
# Solar array project set to begin on Vandenberg

/ Published March 15, 2017
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., An energy company recently awarded a power purchase agreement is set to design and build a 28-megawatt solar photovoltaic array, beginning in May, here.The project, which is scheduled to be completed by the end of the year, will span approximately 200 acres in the old east housing area and will be tied directly into the base’s power grid.“The solar project is a system designed to supply solar power by means of photovoltaics,” said Ken Domako, 30th Civil Engineer Squadron programs optimization chief. “The panels absorb the sun’s rays as a source of energy for generating electricity. It utilizes a power purchase agreement with a third party, SunPower, who will own, operate and maintain the system for 26 years.”While expected to be one of the largest photovoltaic arrays in the Air Force, the project will also reduce electrical demand and save the Air Force a significant amount of money annually.“Base electrical demand from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company will be reduced by 35 percent, and the Air Force will save approximately $1.1 million a year, for 26 years,” said Brad King, 30th CES director of planning and programming.The installation of the solar panels are expected to bolster mission security and success.“This project not only provides significant cost avoidance for the Air Force, but a redundant, behind the meter source of energy for the installation and its critical space launch and tracking mission,” said Dan Gerdes, Air Force Civil Engineer Center rates and renewables division chief. “Using a long-term contract with fixed costs ensures we have the electricity we need, when we need it and broadens the pool we have for power sources there. This is one step closer to our target of full energy assurance for key Air Force missions.”Additionally, in the event of an outage, Team V will still be able to maintain power with the new system in place.“Because the power is being produced on the installation, the base will have a higher degree of control over its power systems,” said Gerdes. “In the event of a grid failure off base, Vandenberg will still have some mission capability.”Obtaining the contract to begin working on the solar panels and finishing the project are tasks that required successful communication and a total team effort.“The project’s success is due in fact to the extraordinary efforts of all team members,” said Domako. “Without the strong communication during the award process, the project may have never happened. The Defense Logistics Agency and AFCEC East played a vital role in that aspect.”Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Vandenberg Air Force Base website.
```
[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: 97-21940]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-182-007]

South Georgia Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes To 
FERC Gas Tariff

August 13, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 8, 1997, South Georgia Natural Gas 
Company (South Georgia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised Tariff 
sheet:

Second Substitute Eighth Revised Sheet No. 5

    South Georgia states that the tariff sheet is being filed in 
compliance with the Commission's July 22, 1997 Order in this docket, to 
become effective June 1, 1997.
    On June 20, 1997, South Georgia filed in this proceeding its firm 
rate sheet which reflected the calculation set forth in GISB Standard 
5.3.22 to determine maximum daily volumetric capacity release rates for 
firm service. On July 22, 1997, the Commission issued an order in this 
docket in response to South Georgia's compliance filing that directed 
South Georgia to use an annual rate period and four decimal places when 
calculating such rates.
    Accordingly, South Georgia submitted the revised Tariff sheet set 
forth above.
    Any person desiring to protest this 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 of Practice and Procedures. All such protests must 
be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's 
Regulations. 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. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in 
the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21940 Filed 8-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2272

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jose Martin Morales

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

Submitted: December 2, 2021 

Filed: December 7, 2021 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Martin Morales appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense, and the

district court1

 imposed an enhanced sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)

1The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.
and 851. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that § 851 enhancements are

generally arbitrarily and unjustly applied; and as applied to Morales specifically, the

enhancement is unfair.

To the extent counsel raises issues relating exclusively to policy or fairness,

Morales is without recourse in this direct appeal. We conclude, moreover, the

enhancement was properly applied because Morales had a prior “serious violent

felony,” his status as an aider or abetter notwithstanding; and the sentence imposed

was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Oliver, 987 F.3d 794, 805

(8th Cir. 2021) (reviewing factual findings regarding application of § 851

enhancement for clear error and legal determinations de novo); United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentences

first for significant procedural error, then for substantive reasonableness under

abuse-of-discretion standard); cf. United States v. Gammell, 932 F.3d 1175, 1179–80

(8th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2809 (2020) (noting an aiding and abetting

conviction is one way to prove a defendant was guilty of a substantive offense which

qualifies as a violent felony).

We reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) and 

found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

______________________________

-2-