alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# 2017 DLA Land and Maritime Culture Academy

/ Published Sept. 18, 2017
Columbus, OHIO, 
You don’t want to miss it!

The Culture Academy is back and better than ever!  You’ll hear from DLA Land and Maritime senior leaders as they discuss culture, journey and history of DLA, consistency, involvement, resiliency and competitive edge.  It’ll also help you better understand and live the DLA Land and Maritime Way.

**Topics and speakers:**
      - **Competitive Edge**Presenter: Mr. Steven Alsup     Why are we here and where are we going? 
      - **Culture Journey/History**Presenter: Dr. Robert Boggs    
      - **Consistency**Presenter: Mr. Don Schulze    How is DLA Land and Maritime listening to the Culture Survey Results?    
      - **Involvement**Presenter: Mr. Todd Lewis    Discuss the ACE concept and begin formal change management process.    
      - **Resiliency**Presenter: Col. Hang    Provide and promote resiliency resources and tools.         

DLA Land and Maritime civilians and military personnel **are****required** to attend one of the following sessions in the Building 20 auditorium:

**9 - 11 a.m. Sessions**
      -     Thursday, October 5          
      -     Tuesday, October 10               
      -     Thursday, October 12  

**1 - 3 p.m. Sessions**
      -     Wednesday, October 18       
      - Tuesday, October 24	
      - Thursday, November 2	

Sign up for a session by following these easy steps... 
      - Visit the LMS training site
      - Log-in    
      - Search for the course: DLA Land and Maritime Culture Academy    
      - Select a date and time to attend a session. 
      -     Self-register for the session in LMS. 	
      - Print your LMS notification from Outlook. 
      - Bring your LMS notification to the session and turn it in to ensure you receive credit for attending.  
      - Registration ***closes at noon the day before*** each session.   

Registration in LMS opened September 18. 

*Note that reasonable accommodations and CART services will be available for each session.  Also note that your attendance constitutes two (2) continuous learning points (CLPs).For more information, contact DLALandandMariCulturAc@dla.mil*.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1175

SHAHED FARASAT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEBBIE PAULIKAS; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL,

INCORPORATED; CTF HOTEL MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION, a body corporate,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge.

(CA-97-1488-H)

Submitted: November 30, 1998 Decided: December 21, 1998

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shahed Farasat, Appellant Pro Se. Todd James Horn, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, Baltimore, Maryland; Nancy Carolyn Lee, MARRIOTT

INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Shahed Farasat appeals the district court’s order granting

Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment in his

action alleging employment discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1981 (1994) and state law. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Farasat v.

Paulikas, No. CA-97-1488-H (D. Md. June 11, 1997; Jan. 6, 1998). 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
**EXHIBIT
      32**


**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 Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John C. Roman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Lee R. Schlesinger,
      Vice President and Treasurer 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:





(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 as of the date
      and for the period covered by the Report.








/s/
      John C. Roman


John
      C.
      Roman


President
      and Chief Executive Officer





/s/
      Lee R. Schlesinger


Lee
      R.
      Schlesinger


Vice
      President and Treasurer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)








Date:
      May
      14, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21589]


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

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 3


Board of Governors Bylaws

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service has 
approved an amendment to its bylaws. The amendment describes how the 
cost of a development real estate project is determined for purposes of 
applying the bylaw requirement for Board approval of capital investment 
projects above $10 million.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Koerber, (202) 268-4800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board of Governors of the Postal Service 
consists of nine Presidentially appointed Governors, and the Postmaster 
General and Deputy Postmaster General. 39 U.S.C. 202. The bylaws of the 
Board list certain matters reserved for action by the Board. 39 CFR 
3.3. Among the matters reserved is the approval of each capital 
investment project in excess of a dollar amount specified by annual 
resolution of the Board each January, currently $10 million. At its 
meeting on August 5, 1997, the Board approved an amendment to the bylaw 
to explain how to compute the cost of developmental real estate 
projects for purposes of determining whether the project is of 
sufficient magnitude to come before the Board for approval under this 
provision.
    The amendment provides that the cost of developmental real estate 
projects is computed by combining three elements. These are the value 
of the assets contributed by the Postal Service, the cash contributed 
by the Postal Service, and any debt that would impact the Postal 
Service investment.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3

    Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions 
(Government agencies), Postal Service.

    Accordingly, 39 CFR Part 3 is amended as follows:

PART 3--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 3 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 39 U.S.C. 202, 203, 205, 401 (2), (10), 402, 1003, 
2802-2804, 3013; 5 U.S.C. 552b (g), (j); Inspector General Act, 5 
U.S.C. app.

    2. Section 3.3 is amended by adding new paragraph (e)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 3.3  Matters reserved for decision by the Board.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) The cost of a developmental real estate project shall be the 
sum of:
    (i) The as-is value of the postal assets contributed to the 
project;
    (ii) Cash contributed by the Postal Service; and
    (iii) Debt that impacts the Postal Service's investment.
* * * * *
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 97-21589 Filed 8-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

December 9, 2011

y1206

Order 

December 9, 2011

144018

SC: 144018

In re C.S. Turner, Minor. COA: 303187

Oakland CC Family Division:

2010-771597-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22519]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Federal Pell Grant, Federal Perkins Loan, Federal Work-Study, 
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, Federal Family 
Education Loan, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Programs; 
Revision of the Need Analysis Methodology for the 1998-99 Award Year

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Correction.

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

    On May 29, 1997, the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary 
Education published in the Federal Register (62 FR 29272), a notice of 
revision of the need analysis methodology for the 1998-99 award year. 
This notice corrects the May 29 document as follows:
    On Page 29273, item 3, is corrected as follows--
    (1) In the table titled ``Dependent Students'', line 18, column 3, 
26,700 is corrected to read 25,700.
    (2) In the table titled ``Independent Students Without Dependents 
Other Than a Spouse'', line 18, column 3, 26,700 is corrected to read 
25,700.
    (3) In the table titled ``Independent Students With Dependents 
Other that a Spouse--Continued'', line 14, column 3, 26,700 is 
corrected to read 25,700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Edith Bell, Program Specialist, 
General Provisions Branch, Policy Development Division, U.S. Department 
of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, SW. (Room 3053, ROB-3), 
Washington, DC 20202-5444, telephone (202) 708-8242. Individuals who 
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 
p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.

    Dated: August 18, 1997.
David A. Longanecker,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 97-22519 Filed 8-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
No. 9574.

#### The Cleveland, Akron *&*Columbus Railway Co. *v.*Murray.

(Decided June 29, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Holmes county.

*Mr. G. W. Sharp*and *Messrs. Carey S Mullins,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. W. Stilivell*and *Messrs. J. é G. E. Huston,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed. Ground stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed for error in affirming the judgment herein of the court of common pleas of said Holmes county. And this court proceeding to render the judgment said circuit court should have rendered, it is considered and adjudged that the judgment of the said court of common pleas be and the same hereby is reversed for error in refusing to give to the jury the following instruction requested by the’Railway Company, to-wit: ”8. I instruct you that you shall not consider evidence of custom prior to May 1, 1901, if you find from the evidence that a new book of rules was adopted as claimed by the defendant on that date, providing you find from the evidence that Murray had in his possession a copy of such book of rules prior to his injury.” And for admitting evidence contrary to the law as stated in said request. And this cause is remanded to the court of common pleas of Holmes county for further proceedings according to law.

*523Shauck, C. J., Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         440,867
<SECURITIES>                               135,255,667
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,461,655
<ALLOWANCES>                                   196,885
<INVENTORY>                                  3,605,662
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,259,664
<PP&E>                                       3,026,619
<DEPRECIATION>                               (941,208)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             146,012,041
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,056,189
<BONDS>                                    112,828,402
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          266,769
<PREFERRED>                                 16,908,025
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,952,656
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               146,012,041
<SALES>                                     12,446,386
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,443,060
<CGS>                                        6,445,142
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,445,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,214,639
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,862,157
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,921,122
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,133,784)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,787,338
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,787,338
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .75
        

</TABLE>
No. 9539.

#### Scott et al. *v.*The City of Toledo et al.

(Decided February 20, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*Mr. A. T. Goorley,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. U. G. Denman,*city solicitor, and *Mr. Frank G. Crane,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
No. 9524.

#### Meek et al. *v.*Duffy et al.

(Decided March 13, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court' of Geauga county.

*450
      *Mr. E. E. Moyer,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. W. G. King; Mr. Clark H. Nye*and *Mr. E. E. Moyer,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1578

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan River

Basin endangered fish recovery implementation programs.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Upper Colorado and

5 San Juan River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Pro6 grams Reauthorization Act of 2005’’.
 †

2

S 1578 ES

1 SEC. 2. UPPER COLORADO AND SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN EN2 DANGERED FISH RECOVERY IMPLEMENTA3 TION PROGRAMS.

4 Section 3 of Public Law 106–392 (114 Stat. 1602;

5 116 Stat. 3113) is amended—

6 (1) in subsection (a)—

7 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking

8 ‘‘$46,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$61,000,000’’;

9 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘2008’’

10 and inserting ‘‘2010’’; and

11 (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘2008’’

12 and inserting ‘‘2010’’;

13 (2) in subsection (b)—

14 (A) by striking ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and in15 serting ‘‘$126,000,000’’;

16 (B) in paragraph (1)—

17 (i) by striking $82,000,000’’ and in18 serting ‘‘$108,000,000’’; and

19 (ii) by striking ‘‘2008’’ and inserting

20 ‘‘2010’’; and

21 (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘2008’’

22 and inserting ‘‘2010’’; and

23 (3) in subsection (c)(4)—

24 (A) in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘and

25 the Elkhead Reservoir enlargement’’ after

26 ‘‘Wolford Mountain Reservoir’’; and
†

3

S 1578 ES

1 (B) in the second sentence, by striking

2 ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$31,000,000’’.

Passed the Senate December 16, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1578

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan

tation programs.River Basin endangered fish recovery implemen-
# Matthews takes the helm at DLA Distribution Norfolk

/ Published July 14, 2017
NORFOLK, Virginia, United States Navy Supply Corps Capt. Andrew M. Matthews assumed command of DLA Distribution Norfolk, Virginia, in a July 14 ceremony officiated by DLA Distribution commanding general Army Brig. Gen. John S. Laskodi. 
A native of Grove City, Pennsylvania, Matthews graduated from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in 1991 with a Bachelor of Arts in History and was commissioned an ensign in the Navy Supply Corps.  In 2003, he attended the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, where he earned a Master of Business Administration in logistics and was awarded the Naval Supply Systems Command Award for Academic Excellence in Management.  He also completed the Executive Training Program at the Wharton School of Business. 

His most recent position was director of Surface Operations at Naval Supply Systems Command Weapons Systems Support in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, from April 2014 to June 2017.

Matthews’ initial duty station was the USS Nicholas (FFG 47) where he qualified as a Surface Warfare Officer.  At sea, he also served on the USS Oklahoma City (SSN 723) as supply officer during which his department earned the Supply Blue “E” Award for logistics excellence.  He also served as Military Detachment officer in charge on the USNS Richard E Byrd (T AKE 4) from January 2011 to May 2012.  Byrd was a forward-deployed combat logistics force ship that operated in the 5th and 7th Fleet Areas of Responsibility. 

His shore assignments include: Commander Submarine Force, Atlantic; Commander Logistics Forces Naval Central Command/CTF 53, where he was selected for the calendar year 2000 Navy Vice Adm. Robert F. Batchelder Award for excellence in operational logistics; NAVSUP WSS Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Fleet Readiness Center, Southeast; U.S. Pacific Command deputy division chief for Plans and Exercises (J46) and lead logistics planner in the J4 Directorate; and NAVSUP Headquarters director of Supply Chain Management.

Matthews’ personal awards include the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal (3 gold stars), Navy Commendation Medal (2 gold stars), and the Navy Achievement Medal (3 gold stars). He is a qualified Surface Warfare Officer and a Submarine Supply Corps Officer. He is Joint Officer and DAWIA Level III qualified and a member of the Defense Acquisition Corps.
#### MARYLAND NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Jim GARRISON, District Attorney, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, et al.

No. 3719.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

March 9, 1970.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1970.

Writ Refused June 8, 1970.

Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, Robert L. Redfearn, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty. for Parish of Orleans, and Shirley G. Wimberly, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty. for Parish of Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

Before REGAN, HALL and RED-MANN, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal by the Orleans Parish Civil District Court, *33on exception to its jurisdiction, of plaintiff’s suit to enjoin execution under fi. fa. by the Orleans Criminal District Court of its judgments forfeiting bail bonds signed by plaintiff as surety.

Plaintiff asks us to overrule our decision in United Benefit Fire Ins. Co. of Omaha, Neb. v. Garrison, 166 So.2d 650 (La.App.1964), an identical suit in which we refused, with one dissent, to afford the requested relief.

Even if we were to assume the correctness of that dissent’s view that the Criminal District Court has no jurisdiction to render and execute money judgments, we still view as absolutely intolerable that one court, having neither appellate nor supervisory jurisdiction over a second court, should attempt to interfere by injunction against the second court with that court’s operation of what it deems, rightly or wrongly, to be its business.

If the Civil District Court can enjoin the Criminal District Court, perhaps the Criminal District Judge could imprison the Civil District Judge for contempt or conspiracy.

It is true that Tracy v. Dufrene, 240 La. 232, 121 So.2d 843 (1960), held one district court had the power to determine a claim of absolute nullity of another district court’s judgment, even after its af-firmance by the supreme court on appeal, when a plaintiff urged the nullity because the earlier judgment would have defeated plaintiff’s principal demand. The Tracy case also noted that a defendant may plead in any court the nullity of a judgment there sought to be executed against him.

Appellant here is in neither position. It makes no separate principal demand against which the judgments in question constitute a defense. Nor are those judgments sought to be enforced against appellant in the Civil District Court.

Furthermore, it is one thing for a court to merely hold null another’s judgment, and quite a different thing for one court to enjoin another. Holding a court’s judgment null is merely to ignore it; enjoining the court is telling it how to conduct its business, which function belongs only to a court with appellate or supervisory jur-isdictioh.

The Civil District Court correctly held it has no such jurisdiction over the Criminal District Court, and the judgment appealed from is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.