alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

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

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# 436th Logistics Readiness Squadron visits DLA Energy headquarters

By Tanekwa BournesDLA Energy Public Affairs

                FORT BELVOIR, Virginia  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Energy436th Logistics Readiness SquadronSustainment Restoration and ModernizationTraining
#### Ricky RICHARDSON v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 49950.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 2, 1977.

Sims & Sims, C. Darrell Reeves, Jr., Columbus, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Pete J. Cajoleas, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lowndes County; Joe 0. Sams, Sr., Judge.

AFFIRMED.
7/8/2014, ARS Project: Evaluation of Selected Rainbow Trout Lines Fed Grain-Based Diets under Farm Scale Conditions (407455) Annual Report
las ) co

North Atlantic  Leetown, West Vii

ARS Hom i Contact Us! En Espafol

Printable Version ==? E-mail this page

a You are here: Research /

Enter Keywords Research

Research Project: Evaluation of Selected Rainbow Trout

Advanced Search

Lines Fed Grain-Based Diets under Farm Scale Conditions Project Annual Reports
o FY 2006
Browse By Subject Location: Leetown, West Virginia © FY 2005
> Home o FY 2004
2006 Annual Report
> About Us
Related National Programs
- This report serves to document research conducted under a Specific © Aquaculture (106)
Programs and Projects Cooperative Agreement between ARS and University of Idaho.
© public Information Additional details of research can be found in the report for the parent
CRIS 1930-31000-007-00D Utilizing Genetics for Enhancing Cool and
> Products & Services Cold Water Aquaculture Production.
> People & Places Fish from 33 genetic groups were evaluated at the University of Idaho,
Hagerman facility. Each genetic group was divided into 4 replicate
> News & Events tanks and fed either a control diet high in fishmeal content or a diet
> Partnering high in protein from soybean meal. Family and diet effects were large;
however, the effects of family x diet were mostly small. The most
Bicueers! important family x diet interaction effect was for feed efficiency.

Last Modified: 10/17/2007
ARS Home | USDA.gov | Site Map | Policies and Links
FOIA | Accessibility Statement | Privacy Policy | Nondiscrimination Statement | Information Quality | USA.gov | White House

https:/|web.archive.or g/wweb/20070621202626/http:/Amww.ars.usda.goviresearchiprojects/projects.hm?ACCN_NO=4074558showpars=true8fy=2006

4
MIRANDA GOLD CORP.


Unit 1 – 15782 Marine Drive


White Rock, B.C. V4B 1E6





Tel:  (604) 536-2711


Fax: (604) 536-2788





Certification of CFO 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 Miranda Gold Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended August 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Doris Meyer, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of her knowledge, 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.




Dated:           December 13, 2012“signed” Doris MeyerDoris Meyer, Chief Financial Officer




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.
#### Kenneth Joe GARRETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-322.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Dec. 9, 1969.

Kenneth Joe Garrett, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*2ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

SPECTOR, Judge.

On October 24, 1969, appellant in this appeal filed a letter with this court which we treated as a motion to appoint counsel. By order dated October 31, 1969, that motion was denied.

On November 10, 1969, appellant filed an instrument entitled “Petition to Show Cause” by which he reasserts his prayer for the appointment of counsel, contending that he is entitled thereto under the constitution. In Douglas v. People of the State of California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963), it was held that an indigent person is entitled to court appointed counsel, and the court stated, “Where the merits of the one and only appeal an indigent has as of right are decided without benefit of counsel, we think an unconstitutional line has been drawn between rich and poor.”

The Florida Supreme Court has construed the holding in the Douglas case, supra, to be applicable as of right only on a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered thereon in State v. Weeks, 166 So.2d 892 (Fla.1964). In Weeks, a distinction was made between direct appeals and collateral or post-conviction proceedings, such as the one at hand; and the court ruled that in the latter class of cases counsel would be required, and therefore appointed, only where the circumstances of a particular case are such that assistance of counsel is deemed essential by the court to accomplish a fair and thorough presentation of the prisoner’s claims. The rule stated in Weeks, supra, was recently adhered to by our highest court in State v. Herzig, 208 So.2d 619 (1968).

Earlier we denied appellant’s motion for counsel without an opinion stating the reason for such denial. We now, on rehearing, again deny the request for the reason stated since this is a collateral proceeding. As this case progresses, should it appear that there are issues which suggest that appointed counsel is necessary to present appellant’s case, the court can then consider whether appointment of counsel is warranted in light of the guidelines set forth in the Weeks case. Presently, there is no such showing.

Until such necessity becomes apparent, we are reluctant to dissipate the limited public resources available for the assistance of indigent persons.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 172 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 172

 To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the 
  regulation of all contact lenses as medical devices, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2005

Mr. DeWine (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the 
  regulation of all contact lenses as medical devices, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds as follows:
            (1) All contact lenses have significant effects on the eye 
        and pose serious potential health risks if improperly 
        manufactured or used without appropriate involvement of a 
        qualified eye care professional.
            (2) Most contact lenses currently marketed in the United 
        States, including certain plano and decorative contact lenses, 
        have been approved as medical devices pursuant to premarket 
        approval applications or cleared pursuant to premarket 
        notifications by the Food and Drug Administration (``FDA'').
            (3) FDA has asserted medical device jurisdiction over most 
        corrective and noncorrective contact lenses as medical devices 
        currently marketed in the United States, including certain 
        plano and decorative contact lenses, so as to require approval 
        pursuant to premarket approval applications or clearance 
        pursuant to premarket notifications.
            (4) All contact lenses can present risks if used without 
        the supervision of a qualified eye care professional. Eye 
        injuries in children and other consumers have been reported for 
        contact lenses that are regulated by FDA as medical devices 
        primarily when used without professional involvement, and 
        noncorrective contact lenses sold without approval or clearance 
        as medical devices have caused eye injuries in children.

SEC. 2. REGULATION OF CERTAIN ARTICLES AS MEDICAL DEVICES.

    Section 520 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
360j) is amended by adding at the end the following:

                ``Regulation of Contact Lens as Devices

    ``(n)(1) All contact lenses shall be deemed to be devices under 
section 201(h).
    ``(2) Paragraph 1 shall not be construed as having any legal effect 
on any article that is not described in that paragraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 00-7166.

#### Johnston *v.*Kentucky.

Sup. Ct. Ky. Certio-rari denied.
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 IV, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 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: February 4, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer

Big Sky Industries IV, Inc.
FILED IN 1STCOURTOFAPPEALS HOUSTON TFXA= 

## APR " 9 2015

c 

### April 4. 2015

First Court ofAppeals 301 Fannin Street 2nd Floor Houston, TX 77002 Dear First Court ofAppeals: 

# CHRIST^HER/vPBINt CLEfflU-ya -*• i

Iam writing regarding my nephew Bob N. Norfleet#1646699, incarcerated at the McConnell Unit in Beeville, TX. His case numbers are: 1259446 and 1259447. Iam requesting some copies contained in court numbers: 01-10-00429-CR and 01-10-00430-CR. 

### Iam specifically requesting the 'Reporter's Record', the 'Trail on the Merits', and the 'Guilt/Innocence Phase' from the Reporter's Record. Please send to me the cost ofmy request to: Sonya Kunama 3068 David Ave #19 San Jose, CA 95128 Thank you. Sincerely, (7 Sonya Kunama-.1 -J o o w w n m Cfi ID li) 

## 3\ > tfN 

## T U* 1
o Q> £ IA 

### N ~~ to 

# 1?

0 s; 75 

### * 

# 2 1

> 

### sJ "0 

# 5 0 3> ^ O T 

# & H \h * £ c ^ tf> i I/) s 

### V TV 

# f* r\ tf * 

### * 

# $*l

o V i 

# 5 oC<>

:-; '.V 

# 1

. T3

: a
**Milk Production, Disposition & Income--supplement (PMP-BB)
A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture**Description:**
**
EXHIBIT 11.8

Re:       Walker Wingsail America, Inc.
          File No. 000-27274

                      FINAL AMENDMENT TO SCHEDULE 14D-1
                          TENDER OFFER DISCLOSURES
                       BY WALKER WINGSAIL SYSTEMS plc
                       FOR TENDER OFFER FOR THE EQUITY
                 SECURITIES OF WALKER WINGSAIL AMERICA INC.

      The following information is provided as a First and Final Amendment 
to its Schedule 14D-1, filed on July 17, 1997 by Walker Wingsail Systems 
plc, as required by Rule 14d-6 adopted by the Securities and Exchange 
Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Regulation 
14D promulgated thereunder:

The identity of the bidder for the equity securities of Walker Wingsail 
America Inc. is Walker Wingsail Systems plc.

The identity of the subject company is Walker Wingsail America, Inc.

By this tender offer, Walker Wingsail Systems plc sought to buy 2,386,680 
shares of the common stock of Walker Wingsail America Inc. issued and 
outstanding, which constitutes all of the common stock of said company.  The 
consideration for the purchase of the aforesaid stock was the exchange of 
two Ordinary Shares of Walker Wingsail Systems plc for every one share of 
the common stock of Walker Wingsail America Inc.

The tender offer terminated on July 31, 1997 and the exchange of shares 
occurred on September 1 through 4, 1997, respectively (see attached Summary 
Schedule).

No material changes in the items to the Schedule 14-D1 occurred; 
accordingly, no additional disclosures have been made.

Securities deposited pursuant to this tender offer during the period that 
the offer remained open consisted of 2,237,066 shares of the common stock of 
Walker Wingsail America Inc. (the "Tendered Common Stock").  The Tendered 
Common Stock consisted of (i)  1,343,654 shares tendered by non-affiliated 
shareholders of Walker Wingsail America Inc. and (ii) 893,412 shares 
tendered by affiliated shareholders of Walker Wingsail America Inc.  The 
affiliated shareholders consisted of Mr. John Walker and Mrs. Jean Walker, 
the founders of both Walker Wingsail Systems plc and Walker Wingsail America 
Inc., who hold a controlling interest in Walker Wingsail Systems plc.  
Pursuant to the terms of the offer, 2,687,308 shares of the Ordinary Shares 
of Walker Wingsail Systems plc were exchanged for the 1,343,654 shares of 
Tendered Common Stock of the non-affiliated shareholders of Walker Wingsail 
America Inc.  With respect to Mr. and Mrs. Walker, 893 412 shares of Walker 
Wingsail Systems plc were exchanged (on a one for one basis) for their 
Tendered Common Stock.  Finally, an additional 90,250 shares of the Ordinary 
Shares of Walker Wingsail Systems plc were issued to certain non-affiliated 
shareholders of Walker Wingsail America Inc., who had purchased shares of 
the common stock of Walker Wingsail America Inc. at higher prices than the 
remaining non-affiliated shareholders.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22186]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
for Proposed Western Army National Guard Aviation Training Site 
Expansion, Arizona

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on July 31, 1997.
    The decision made in the ROD was to implement the proposed action 
and a series of mitigation measures to minimize the environmental 
impacts of this action. The proposed action consists of three 
components: (1) Increase the size of the original Tactical Flight 
Training Area (TFTA) to improve training, enhance training safety 
through reduced training congestion, allowing limited ground training 
support activities, and to reduce noise and environmental impacts 
through closing some parts of the existing TFTA; (2) increase the 
number of helicopter gunnery training operations through construction 
of new ranges or modification to existing ranges; and (3) construct new 
facilities for housing, training, maintenance and to comply with 
changing environmental requirements.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD will be mailed to individuals who 
participated in the public scoping process. Copies will also be sent to 
Federal, State, regional, and local agencies; interested organizations 
and agencies; and public libraries. Individuals not currently on the 
mailing list may obtain a copy by request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The EIS Project Officer, Captain Ron Skaggs, Environmental Officer, 
Arizona Army National Guard, 5636 East McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 
85008-3495 or telephone (602) 267-2742.

    Dated: August 14, 1997.
Raymond J. Fatz,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, (Environment, Safety, and 
Occupational Health), OASA (I, L&E).
[FR Doc. 97-22186 Filed 8-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
EXHIBIT
32.1





SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





In connection with the quarterly report
of Global Food Technologies, Inc. ("Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to their 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.





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging  or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Global Food
Technologies, Inc and will be retained by Global Food Technologies, Inc and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





Dated November
      16, 2009/s/
      Keith MeeksKeith
      Meeks, President and Chief Executive Officer/s/
      Marshall F SparksMarshall
      F. Sparks, Chief Financial
Officer
# Distribution honors Native American Heritage Month

/ Published Nov. 21, 2016
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
What started at the turn of the century as an effort to gain a day of recognition for the significant contributions the first Americans made to the establishment and growth of the U.S., has resulted in a whole month being designated for that purpose.

In 1915, the annual Congress of the American Indian Association meeting in Lawrence, Kans., formally approved a plan concerning American Indian Day. It directed its president, Rev. Sherman Coolidge, an Arapahoe, to call upon the country to observe such a day. Coolidge issued a proclamation on Sept. 28, 1915, which declared the second Saturday of each May as an American Indian Day and contained the first formal appeal for recognition of Indians as citizens.

In 1990 President George H. W. Bush approved a joint resolution designating November 1990 “National American Indian Heritage Month.” Similar proclamations, under variants on the name, including “Native American Heritage Month” and “National American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month” have been issued each year since 1994. 

The proclamation read in part that “the President has authorized and requested to call upon Federal, State and local Governments, groups and organizations and the people of the United States to observe such month with appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities.” This was a landmark event honoring America’s Tribal people.

This commemorative month aims to provide a platform for Native people in the United States to share their culture, traditions, music, crafts, dance, and ways and concepts of life. This gives Native people the opportunity to express to their community, both city, county and state officials their concerns and solutions for building bridges of understanding and friendship in their local area.
#### Freddie Lee ROLLINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1099.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 9, 1977.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Harold Rosenfeld, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *State v. Bruno,*107 So.2d 9 (Fla.1958); *Machin v. State,*270 So.2d 464 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); *Lackos v. State,*339 So.2d 217 (Fla.1976); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(o).