alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# 2019 Worldwide Energy Conference announced

/ Published Jan. 18, 2018
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency Energy will host the 2019 Worldwide Energy Conference at the Gaylord National Hotel and Convention Center, National Harbor, Maryland, May 20-23, 2019.

The bienniel, three-day conference and trade show draws from the entire spectrum of the energy supply chain and provides an exclusive opportunity for Department of Defense employees, contractors, the military services, peers, leaders, and top industry experts to congregate and discuss current trends and initiative in the petroleum, aerospace, alternative fuel and renewable energy fields. 

The 2017 conference was attended by more than two thousand representatives from the DOD, federal agencies and industry.

“It was a very professional experience,” said John Waldheim, chief operations officer for Defense Energy Syndicate LLC. “I highly recommend the conference to anyone looking to do business with DLA.”

The 2019 conference will have a variety of keynote speakers, a plenary session, panel discussions and breakout sessions to offer the opportunity to learn about the latest trends and technologies in the energy industry and how the DOD and federal government are becoming a more efficient and environmentally-friendly provider of energy products.

To join the mailing list or find out more about the 2019 conference, visit the websiteor call the toll free number, 844-883-5697.
**Usual Planting and Harvesting Dates for U.S. Field Crops
A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture-  Usual Planting and Harvesting Dates for U.S. Field Crops (.pdf format)Usual Planting and Harvesting Dates for U.S. Field Crops (.html format)

**
#### Eugene BARFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1779.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 8, 1977.

*622Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Mitchell J. Beers, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Anthony J. Golden, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order denying, without hearing, a motion to vacate filed by the appellant, Eugene Barfield, pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.

Barfield asserted in his motion that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, citing numerous instances of claimed neglect by his court-appointed counsel. The trial court ruled that the allegations were insufficient.

An evidentiary hearing is required on Rule 3.850 motions unless the motion or record *conclusively*shows that the movant is entitled to no relief. We have previously held that similar allegations in a motion to vacate were sufficient to require a hearing. *Lay v. State,*224 So.2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

DOWNEY, ALDERMAN and AN-STEAD, JJ., concur.
#### Jay LONG, Petitioner, v. REEVES KENWORTH TRUCK SALES, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 37512.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 4, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1970.

Charles C. Hurt, Orlando, for petitioner.

Monroe E. McDonald, of Sanders, Mc-Ewan, Schwarz & Mims, Orlando, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida In*5dustrial Commission, now Industrial Relations Commission.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose, and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10(e), 32 F.S.A.

We conclude from our consideration of the petition, record and briefs, that the order of the Commission must be quashed on authority of the decision of this Court

Howard N. Pelzner, Miami, Patrick H. in Brown v. Griffin, 229 So.2d 225 (Fla.1969), and the cause remanded with directions that the matter be returned to the Judge of Industrial Claims for further findings of fact on the evidence already taken, in compliance with our opinions in Brown v. Griffin, *supra,*and Hardy v. City of Tarpon Springs, 81 So.2d 503 (Fla.1955).

Petitioner’s application for attorneys’ fees is granted in the amount of $250.00.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### Meadows Wye & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6189.

Invoices dated Lanark, Scotland, October 1942, etc.

Certified October 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 28, 1942, etc.

Entry No. 712849, etc.

(Decided June 26, 1945)

*Jordan & Klingaman (Edward F. Jordan*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cole, Judge:

The issues involved in these appeals for reappraisement of wool wearing apparel are concededly the same as those decided in *United States*v. *Alfred Dmhill of London, Inc.*(suit No. 4481), C. A. D. 305, the record in which case has been incorporated herein by consent of the parties.

*United States*v. *Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc., supra,*found cost of production, section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. §1402 (f)), to be the proper basis for appraisement, and held that the so-called British purchase tax described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48,” was not an item to be included in the'“usual general expenses” contemplated within subdivision (2) of section 402 (f), *supra,*and therefore not to be calculated in determining such statutory value.

On the agreement of counsel- — set forth in the stipulation of submission filed June 14, 1945 — that the several elements entering into the statutory cost of production of the items in question is equal to *376the appraised values thereof, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, I hold such values to be the cost of production, section 402 (f); *supra,*which I find to be proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise.

The foregoing conclusion applies to all items included on the invoices covered by the appeals under consideration, except Reappraisement 151464-A, to which the said finding is limited to “the items invoiced as cashmere.” As to'all other merchandise covered by said Reappraisement 151464-A, the same is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

DEC 27, 2010

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-13257 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 5:09-cr-00041-RS-LB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STACEY STEMBRIDGE,

 lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Northern District of Florida

 ________________________

(December 27, 2010)

Before BLACK, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Stacey Stembridge appeals his sentence of 87 months of imprisonment for

conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute more than 500
grams of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(ii). Stembridge argues that his

sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

Stembridge argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because

the district court failed to consider whether he was entitled to a reduction of

sentence for his substantial assistance, but this argument lacks merit. The district

court “may depart from the guidelines . . . [u]pon motion of the government stating

that the defendant has provided substantial assistance,” and the comments to the

provision state that “[s]ubstantial weight should be given to the government’s

evaluation of the extent of the defendant’s assistance.” U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 & cmt. n.3 (2009). The government did not move for

Stembridge to receive a lesser sentence and, when the district court discussed the

matter with the parties, the government stated that Stembridge “did not qualify”

for the reduction because he did not “cooperate[] [until] after [he was] in federal

custody.” The district court determined that a sentence “at the top of the guideline

range was necessary because Stembridge’s “Criminal History Category underrepresent[ed] the seriousness of his criminal history” and that “[a] lower sentence

would not be sufficient.” See United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1194–95 (11th

Cir. 2010) (discussing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358, 127 S. Ct. 2456,

2469 (2007)). The district court did not commit a procedural error in sentencing

2
Stembridge.

We AFFIRM Stembridge’s sentence.

3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21376]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-70, RM-9020]


Radio Broadcasting Services; El Reno, OK

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal of.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission dismisses the request of Fred R. Morton to 
allot Channel 293A to El Reno, OK, as the community's first local FM 
service. See 62 FR 9408, March 3, 1997. No comments were received from 
Morton or any other party expressing an intention to file an 
application for the channel, if allotted. With this action, this 
proceeding is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 97-70, adopted July 30, 1997, and 
released August 8, 1997. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-21376 Filed 8-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Destin Drone Services, LLC

Personal Presence Home Watchers and Services, LLC

Paul W. Anderson

387 Bay Tree Drive

Miramar Beach, FL 32550

(850) 460-4818

pwa850@gmail.com

September 25, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave.,

SE Washington, DC 20590

To whom it may concern,

I, Paul Anderson, am formally petitioning to make two changes to my exemption granted under: 

Exemption No. 12988

Regulatory Docket No. FAA−2015−2650

1) The name of the company listed be changed to Destin Drone Services, LLC. I have formed a new 

LLC with a different name in order to better serve my customer base. Personal Presence Home 

Watchers and Services, LLC can be removed from the exemption as it will not be 

conducting any UAS operations. 

2) A second model of UAS be listed alongside the DJI Phantom 3 as part of this exemption: 

the DJI Inspire 1. 

Please contact me if you need any further information or if an entirely new petition must be filed.

Sincerely,

Paul Anderson

Destin Drone Services, LLC &

Personal Presence Home Watchers and Services, LLC
# South Carolina National Guard Soldier builds targets in Romania

/ Published July 31, 2017
CINCU, Romania, For Spc. Alvin Stevens, building targets at a tank range in Romania is a far cry from his previous assignment to Kandahar, Afghanistan. "There's a lot more green, and the shepherds here aren't making phone calls to the Taliban."Stevens of Bonneau, S.C., is currently at Joint National Training Center in Cincu, Romania, serving with the 1223rd Engineer Company, 178th Engineer Battalion, South Carolina Army National Guard.He is a carpentry and masonry specialist whose unit was tasked with completing a moving target system for a tank range. Stevens used his skills as an equipment operator and jumped into the nearest Skidsteer to help load rock into the Gabion baskets that will protect the targetry."Digging rocks is better than building," he said, before turning to pour rocks from the loader bucket. "I love getting to work with heavy equipment."In his four years in the Army Reserve, Stevens has traveled to Afghanistan, Oman, and Romania. In Afghanistan, his unit deconstructed a forward operating base. "They handed us a bunch of sledgehammers and told us to get to work." In Oman, they spent two weeks building an urban operations course out of shipping containers.In Romania, his unit is part of Resolute Castle 17, a multi-national NATO project building an armor live-fire range, a sniper range, and a demolitions range. Besides building infrastructure, Stevens emphasizes the importance of working together with the NATO allies: "We did a lot of welding with them when it came time to put up the range towers."With a father in the Marines, a grandfather in the National Guard, and uncles across the services, Stevens is used to military life but enjoys also being a car salesman for Stokes Honda in North Charleston, S.C. "In selling a car, there are always steps. In the military, too, it's organized, and you have to follow the process. But there are opportunities in that."*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the National Guard website.*
No. 00-7051.

#### Williams *v.*Wirts.

Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lonnie C. JACOBS.

No. 61234.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 21, 1977.

In re: Lonnie C. Jacobs, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Jackson.

Writ refused. No showing of abuse of discretion.
No. 9196.

#### Bell, Jr. *v.*Brinkerhoff.

(Decided May 8, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Richland county.

*Messrs. Cummings, McBride & Wolfe; Messrs. Jones & James*and *Mr. G. B. Groesbeck,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. H. E. Bell,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
No. 8984.

#### The Northwestern National Life Insurance Company *v.*Hare.

(Decided April 3, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Wyandot county.

*Messrs. Brown S Kerr*and *Messrs. Carter & Goodrich,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Carey & Parker,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error. Ground stated in journal entry.

*467Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur. ,.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS109513 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
| **Exhibit                32.0** |
|---------------------------------|

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADDED BY**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations                of the Company as of and for the period covered by this                Report. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:                /s/ Rheo A. Brouillard            |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Rheo                A. Brouillard                    |   |
|   | President                and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   | March                28, 2007                        |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
|   | By:  /s/                Brian J. Hull      |   |
|   | Brian                J. Hull                         |   |
|   | Executive                Vice President, Treasurer   |   |
|   | and                Chief Financial Officer           |   |
|   | March                28, 2007                        |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,867-01

EX PARTE DAVID RAY LEA, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 52758-A IN THE 239 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM BRAZORIA COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). In counts two and three, Applicant was 1

convicted of possession of child pornography and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his probation in counts two and three should not have been revoked

since they were revoked solely on the allegation that Applicant violated a statute that has since been

declared unconstitutional by this Court in Ex parte Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim. App.

 In count one, Applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for possession of 1

child pornography. His sentence in count one has discharged. 
2

2014). 

We order that this application be filed and set for submission to determine if when a statute

has been set aside on constitutional grounds, does the use of that offense to revoke a defendant’s

probation in a different conviction, prior to that statute being declared unconstitutional, entitle the

defendant’s revocation to be vacated. The parties shall brief these issues.

It appears that Applicant is represented by counsel. If that is not correct, the trial court shall

determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and desires to be represented by

counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to represent Applicant. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. art

26.04. The trial court shall send to this Court, within 60 days of the date of this order, a

supplemental transcript containing either the order appointing counsel or a statement that Applicant

is not indigent. All briefs shall be filed with this Court on or before June 6, 2016.

Filed: April 6, 2016

Do not publish
#### Ex parte James Douglas ODOM.

77-365.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 24, 1978.

MADDOX, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 24(c)











POWER OF ATTORNEY








KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned director of CULP, INC., a North Carolina corporation, hereby constitutes and appoints KENNETH R. BOWLING the true and lawful agent and attorney-in-fact to sign for the undersigned as a director of the Corporation the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 1, 2011 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and to sign any amendment or amendments to such Annual Report, hereby ratifying and confirming all acts taken by such agent and attorney-in-fact, as herein authorized.








/s/
Kenneth W. McAllisterKenneth W. McAllister








Date:  July 15, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT  OF INCOME  AND THE  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEET AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>                                     
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,235
<SECURITIES>                                    25,074
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,610
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,011
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,131
<PP&E>                                          50,132
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,019
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 103,518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,721
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           128
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,578
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   103,518
<SALES>                                        167,002
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               167,002
<CGS>                                          127,432
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  156,108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,230
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,219
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,011
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,011
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.61
        

</TABLE>
#### DURA-TRED CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and Joseph Abelow, Appellants, v. Ruth WINSTON and George Winston, Appellees.

No. 69-452.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 31, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 4, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.