alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Best Places to Work rankings show DLA employees with high job satisfaction

/ Published Dec. 29, 2016
Federal employee job satisfaction increased slightly in 2016, and Defense Logistics Agency employees’ job satisfaction reflected that trend.The Partnership for Public Service released its annual Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings Dec. 15. Agencies are grouped in four size categories for rankings: large, midsize, small and agency subcomponents, the category that includes DLA.Tya Dammer, an organizational psychologist in DLA Human Resources, said DLA’s 2016 index score, which measures general satisfaction, rose slightly from the previous year, from 63.7 to 65.7. Governmentwide, federal employee job satisfaction and commitment increased 1.3 points from 2015, for an index score of 59.4. The federal government still lags the private sector’s employee engagement score of 77.1.“Overall, federal government scores have shown a slight increase in each of the past two years,” Dammer said. “This is a positive shift after four straight years of declining scores.”The Best Places to Work index score is based on the percentage of positive responses to three workplace satisfaction questions in the annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, administered by the Office of Personnel Management. In 2016, more than 950 DLA employees took the survey out of a random sampling of about 6,340 who received it. FEVS results were released in September, and DLA scored highly.In terms of Defense Department subcomponents with similar missions, DLA’s index score (65.7) was higher than the Naval Supply Systems Command’s score of 59.8, Air Force Materiel Command’s score of 57.9, and Army Materiel Command’s score of 53.2. DLA’s 2016 index score also outranked all of the military services’ composite scores and most other defense agency subcomponent scores, Dammer said.The index scores are also reported as rankings among agencies. DLA ranked 117th among 305 agency subcomponents in this measure of general satisfaction.DLA’s highest category scores were in Employee Skills-Mission Match (76.5) and Teamwork (67.7).  DLA’s lowest-scoring category was Performance-Based Rewards and Advancement, with a score of 48.9.DLA Human Resources Director Brad Bunn said high scores in these particular areas reflect success in the People and Culture goal area of the DLA Strategic Plan.“Our Strategic Plan calls for us to ‘continuously pursue a performance-based culture that fosters an environment in which DLA employees understand how they fit into the enterprise mission and vision, feel valued, and have rewarding career path options,’” Bunn said. “High scores in such things as Teamwork and Employee Skills-Mission Match show we’re on the right track.“However,” he added, “lower scores in the area of Performance-Based Rewards and Advancement also show we need to continue in these efforts. We’re committed to using our robust culture action planning process to improve our understanding of employee challenges and concerns and develop and implement solutions,” Bunn said.A complete breakdown of agency subcomponent Best Places to Work rankings is available on a rankings page.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
     DECEMBER 31, 1996 FORM 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
     TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                               5,770
<SECURITIES>                         728
<RECEIVABLES>                        4,249
<ALLOWANCES>                         290
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     11,625
<PP&E>                               4,256
<DEPRECIATION>                       2,475
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       24,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                3,320
<BONDS>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                             405
<OTHER-SE>                           19,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         24,468
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     11,646
<CGS>                                365
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        9,908
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     198
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   54
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      2,969
<INCOME-TAX>                         1,045
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  1,924
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                         1,924
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.45
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2




STATEMENT OF ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350




I, Anita K. Ho, the acting chief financial officer of Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc. (the “Company”), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,




(i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and




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




/s/Anita K. HoAnita K. HoMay 12, 2011




---
Exhibit32.1

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,ASADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VillageEDOCS (the "Company") onForm 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that::

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

(2)The information contained in the Quarterly Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

| Date:  November 14, 2007                                                    | /s/ K. Mason Conner                  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|           ------------------------- | ------------------------------------ |
|                                                                                  | Chief Executive Officer              |

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BYSECTION 906, OR OTHER DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISEADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSIONOF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TOVILLAGEEDOCS AND WILL BE RETAINED BY VILLAGEEDOCS AND FURNISHED TO THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 125 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2005 

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

AN ACT 

To designate the courthouse located at 501 I Street in Sacramento, California, as the ‘‘Robert T. Matsui United 

States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

S 125 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States courthouse located at 501 I Street 

3 in Sacramento, California, is designated as the ‘‘Robert 

4 T. Matsui United States Courthouse’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

8 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

9 to be a reference to the Robert T. Matsui United States 

10 Courthouse. 

Passed the Senate February 17, 2005. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
# A Guide to Resources on the   History of the Food and Drug Administration

### 2002

  This guide is designed to familiarize   FDA staff, other government employees,   historians, the press, regulated   industry, students, and anyone else   interested in regulatory history   with the various resources on the   history of the FDA. Included are   both core sources useful for specific   inquiries into the agency's past   and information for those pursuing   extensive historical research on   the FDA. In addition, the guide discusses   the structure, functions, and some   of the programs of the FDA History   Office. The office has a wide range   of functions and offers various types   of assistance to staff and outsiders,   as reflected in some of the programs   and activities mentioned at the end   of this guide. The FDA is the oldest   federal agency that has as its principal   purpose the protection of consumer   health; this guide will help those   who want to learn more about the   evolution of this agency.

### 

###  CONTENTS

### Background: FDA's Origins and Functions

### Researching the History of FDA

- **Published     Primary and Secondary Sources on     FDA History**    -  **Part         I: Primary Sources**
  -  General Sources 
  -  Legal Sources
  -  Sources on Regulations and         Enforcement
  -  Sources on Science and Research
  -  Part II: Secondary         Sources
  -  General Sources 
  -  Sources on Drug, Biologic, and Cosmetic Regulation
  -  Sources on Food, Device,         and Veterinary Medicine Regulation 
-  Unpublished Sources on FDA History    -  Non-FDA Records
  -  Case Files
  -  AF Files and Decimal Files       
  -  New Drug Applications
  -  Dockets Management Branch         Files
  -  Audiovisual Resources 

### The FDA History   Office

- Evolution 
-  Functions
-  The Oral History Program
-  The Museum Collection 
-  Staff 

*FDA History Office  HFC-24, Room 13-51, Food and Drug Administration  5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857  (301) 443-6367*

----

FDA   History Home PageFDA Home Page   | Search   | A-Z   Index | Site   Map | Contact   FDA

FDA/History   Office   Web page created by clb 2003-JAN-27.
# P&C Tree of Appreciation Grows

/ Published Feb. 28, 2018
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
Five associates were recognized by their peers with leaves to place on the Appreciation Tree in B224S on February 21, 2018.Those being recognized were:
      - Carlton Edwards recognized for “Core Values Collaborator”
      - Notasha Fant – recognized for “Outstanding Conductor”
      - Brenda Minnema – recognized for “Healthy Living Promoter”
      - Christie Ratcliff – recognized for “Couldn’t have done it without YOU”
      - Cindy Shawd – recognized for “Couldn’t have done it without YOU”

The Tree of Appreciation program nomination process is simple. Associates within the People and Culture Directorate fill out a PDF form and include a short recognition citation for the nominee. Once complete, the nominator clicks submit on the form and the award is sent for approval. Nominees are recognized at the monthly People and Culture staff meeting with their citation and a leaf to put on the Appreciation Tree in the B224S conference room in Bldg. 20. They also receive a smaller leaf to place at their desk for display. To date, 13 leaves have been placed on the People and Culture Directorate Tree of Appreciation.
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 US Biodefense, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, David Chin, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer, and Scott Perren, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our 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.





/s/ David Chin

David Chin

Chief Executive Officer

October 21, 2005



/s/ Scott Perren

Scott Perren

Chief Financial Officer

October 21, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23188]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 96-61, FCC 97-269]


Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of Order Regarding Rate 
Integration

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, the 
Federal Communications Commission (the ``Commission'') denies certain 
petitions for reconsideration because the Commission determines that 
there is no basis for granting the petitions, and dismisses a motion 
for partial stay or request for extension because the motion is moot. 
The intended effect of this action is the denial of petitions for 
reconsideration, and dismissal of a motion for partial stay or request 
for extension.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Bailey, Competitive Pricing 
Division, at (202) 418-1520.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Communications Commission (the 
``Commission'') denies petitions for reconsideration of its order 
entitled, Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange 
Marketplace, Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, Report and Order, 61 FR 42558 (1996), 11 FCC Rcd 
9564 (1996), filed by GTE Service Corporation, U.S. West, Inc., 
American Mobile Satellite Carriers Subsidiary Corp. (AMSC), and IT&E 
Overseas, Inc. insofar as the petitions raise issues concerning 
implementation of the rate integration requirements of section 254(g) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The Commission defers to 
a later decision issues raised in other petitions for reconsideration 
of the order concerning implementation of the geographic rate averaging 
requirements of section 254(g) of the Act. The Commission's order 
denies petitions for reconsideration filed by GTE Service Corporation 
and US West, Inc. because it determines that Congress intended the 
Commission to require rate integration across affiliates. The 
Commission's order denies the petition for reconsideration filed by 
AMSC because it determines that the service provided by AMSC is covered 
by section 254(g) of the Act. Finally, the Commission denies the 
petition for partial reconsideration filed by IT&E Overseas, Inc. 
because it determines that IT&E Overseas, Inc. has failed to 
demonstrate that forbearance is justified so that it can charge higher 
rates to subscribers in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands than in Guam. The Commission also dismisses as moot the Motion 
for Partial Stay or Request for Extension filed by GTE Service 
Corporation (GTE).

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23188 Filed 9-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### Lester Lee LACALLE, Jr. v. ASHY ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.

No. 61541.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1978.

In re: Ashy Enterprises, Inc., et al applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of St..Landry. 353 So.2d 439.

Writ denied.
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 quarterly Report of GL Energy and Exploration,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 results of  operation of the
Company.


Dated:  November 14, 2003                        By: /s/ Donald Byers
                                                     -----------------------
                                               Name: Donald Byers
                                              Title: Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  November 14, 2003                        By: /s/ Donald Byers
                                                     -----------------------
                                               Name: Donald Byers
                                              Title: Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the annual report of Ever-Glory International Group, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Guo Yan, Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certify
      as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
      Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
      knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.




Date:
                March 11, 2008
            
            /s/
                Guo YanGuo
                YanChief
                Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial and Accounting 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6716

EDWIN PHILLIPS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-03-565-1)

Submitted: August 27, 2004 Decided: September 16, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin Phillips, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Edwin Phillips, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and

dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Phillips has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6363

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. TERESA GALLOP , Defendant

- Appellant

.

No. 21
- 6364

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. TERESA GALLOP , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. ( 4:16

- cr - 00088

- MSD

- LRL

- 2 ; 4:19

- cv - 00085

- MSD ; 4:16

- cr - 00086

- MSD

- LRL

- 1 ; 4:19

- cv - 00084

- MSD )

Submitted : May 20, 2021 Decided: May 25, 20212 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Teresa R. Gallop, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Teresa Gallop seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion

. See Whiteside v. United States , 775 F.3d 180, 182

- 83 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one

- year statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right

. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gallop has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabi lity and dismiss the se consolidated appeal s . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED