alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA Aviation Marines celebrate birth of Marine Aviation

/ Published May 24, 2017
Richmond, VA, 
Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Marines gathered with sister military services, friends, and DSCR employees in the Center Restaurant May 22 to celebrate the birthday of Marine aviation. 

Marine aviation officially began on May 22, 1912, when First Lieutenant Alfred Austell Cunningham reported to Naval Aviation Camp in Annapolis, Maryland, "for duty in connection with aviation."  The first Marine Aviation Company, consisting of 10 officers and 40 enlisted, was commissioned Feb. 17, 1917. 

Master of Ceremonies Marine Corps Maj. Chris Story read to the audience from a letter written by Cunningham, the first Marine Corps aviator. 

Story related Cunningham’s thoughts that in May 1912, the Marine Corps had little interest in aviation and it was looked upon more as a crazy sport than as anything useful. 

From the humble, disgruntled beginnings of the first Marine aviator, Story said, “The Marine Corps has grown to 40,000 personnel, 1,300 aircraft and is budgeted for 270,000 flight hours annually.”

Marine Corps Col. A. J. Manuel, DLA Aviation Marine Corps logistics lead, served as the ceremony guest speaker.

“We do aviation here and that’s our passion,” he said. “As Marines, we really like our history and it is apropos that we take a quick pause to celebrate the 105 years of Marine aviation.” 

Manuel said, “Today we honor not only the birth of Marine Aviation, but also the role DLA has played over the last 65 years in making the Marine Corps our nation’s 911 force in readiness.”

The Marine Corps has existed for 242 years, which means the Corps fought without the aviation combat element for 137 years, said Manuel.  “A few visionaries saw what the potential technology could bring to the Marine Corps to make it even more lethal and have a longer operational reach than ever before.  Today, it’s pretty unfathomable to think of the Marines without aviation and Marine Air Ground Task Force.”  

Manuel said the Marines have developed new ways to use aviation to their advantage, while holding to the Corps’ mantra ‘every Marine, a rifleman.’ We support the grunts on the ground. That is why Marine aviation exists. We adopted aviation as our artillery and cargo carrying capacity to extend our operational reach beyond the beachhead.”  

Marines today embrace new technology while still caring for our legacy for aircraft that we have, said Manuel as he discussed the new Marine aircraft being fielded today and in the future.

He said today’s cake cutting ceremony is about Marine Aviation and DLA relationships, about us getting to know each other.  “I want to thank all the DLA employees for what you do every day, and if you touch a Marine Corps requirement, I hope this ceremony will remind you that while what you do every day may seem insignificant, it is not.  Every ounce of your energy moves the needle forward just a little bit.”
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James WILLIAMS.

No. 61052.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 31, 1978.

John M. Blanchard, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., John L. Lenfant, IV, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Crop Production--Annual Summary (PCP-BB)
A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture**Description:**
**
#### BAKER REALTY, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Roland V. McKNEELY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13356.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Oct. 31, 1977.

En Banc Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 1977.

McKneely & McKenzie by Roland V. McKneely, Jr., Bossier City, for defendant-appellant.

Booth, Lockard, Jack, Pleasant & LeSage by John R. Pleasant, Shreveport, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before PRICE, MARVIN and JONES, JJ.

PRICE, Judge.

This is a petitory action brought by plaintiffs, Baker Realty, Inc. and Baker Land Company, a partnership composed of J. W. Baker, John D. Baker, and Raymond W. Baker, against Roland V. McKneely seeking to have plaintiffs’ ownership of the land and minerals recognized on two tracts of land in Caddo Parish. The ease was consolidated for the purpose of trial and appeal with the case of *Hoffman, et al. v. McKneely,*No. 13,355 on the docket of this court in which an opinion was rendered on this date, reported in 352 So.2d 260.

For the reasons assigned in the opinion referred to, we., affirm the trial court’s judgment rejecting the reeonventional demand of Roland V. McKneely and recognizing Baker Realty Inc. as owner of the property, and Baker Land Company, a partnership composed of J. W. Baker, John D. Baker, and Raymond W. Baker, owners of the minerals in the E V2 of the SE of the SE Vi and the NW *lU*of the NE *Vt*of Section 5, Township 18 North, Range 15 West, Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant.
#### BLAISE PARKING AND ENTERPRISES CORP. v. PROJECT SQUARE 221.

No. 60783.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1977.

In re: Project Square 221 applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans, 349 So.2d 387.

Writ denied.
Industrial Hardware contracting officer earns DLA Troop Support Employee of the Month
 
  By DLA Troop Support Public Affairs
  A contracting officer who works on two highly visible programs in the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support’s Industrial Hardware supply chainwas named the Employee of the Month for December.  Thomas Smith manages the Acquisition Advice Code J program for non-stocked material, which has generated more than 1,270 delivery orders over two years.  He also serves as a contracting officer for a support program that maintains approximately 8,000 bench stock items at 20,000 bin locations at the Corpus Christi Army Depot.  According to his award citation, Smith is an invaluable member of his team, selflessly offers assistance when needed and approaches each new hurdle with a smile.
# L_2023175EN.01000101.xml

| 10.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 175/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 175/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2023/1426

of 3 July 2023

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Sebadas / Seadas / Sabadas / Seattas / Savadas / Sevadas di Sardegna’ (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Sebadas / Seadas / Sabadas / Seattas / Savadas / Sevadas di Sardegna’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Sebadas / Seadas / Sabadas / Seattas / Savadas / Sevadas di Sardegna’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no reasoned statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Sebadas / Seadas / Sabadas / Seattas / Savadas / Sevadas di Sardegna’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no reasoned statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Sebadas / Seadas / Sabadas / Seattas / Savadas / Sevadas di Sardegna’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Sebadas / Seadas / Sabadas / Seattas / Savadas / Sevadas di Sardegna’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 2.3. – Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares and Class 2.5. – Pasta, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 July 2023.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 103, 20.3.2023, p. 17.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1028

MOSES BEAUFORT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RALPH H. JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:18-cv-01569-RMG)

Submitted: June 16, 2020 Decided: June 18, 2020

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Moses Beaufort, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Moses Beaufort appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of 

the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failure to 

prosecute. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See

4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Beaufort’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the 

district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that 

brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the License Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2004 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, 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 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.


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President and Director and
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date:  November 12, 2004
**WASDE Crop Estimates (95501)**
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45249-45250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22660]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5882-8]


National Drinking Water Advisory Council; Request For Nominations

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites all interested 
persons to nominate qualified individuals to serve a three year term as 
members of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council. This Advisory 
Council was established to provide practical and independent advice, 
consultation and recommendations to the Agency on the activities, 
functions and policies related to the implementation of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act as amended. The Council consists of fifteen members, 
including a Chairperson. Five members represent the general public; 
five members represent appropriate state and local agencies concerned 
with water hygiene and public water supply; and five members represent 
private organizations or groups demonstrating an active interest in the 
field of water hygiene and public water supply. On December 15 of each 
year, five members complete their appointment. Due to a declined 
appointment last year, an additional vacancy is available to fill a 
term expiring December 16, 1999. Therefore, this notice solicits names 
to fill six vacancies as of December 16, 1997.
    Any interested person or organization many nominate qualified 
individuals for membership. Nominees should be identified by name, 
occupation, position, address and telephone number. Nominations must 
include a current resume providing the nominee's background, 
experience, and qualifications.
    Persons selected for membership will receive compensation for 
travel and a nominal daily compensation while attending meetings.
    Nominations should be submitted to Charlene E. Shaw, Designated 
Federal Officer, National Drinking Water Advisory Council, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking 
Water (4601), 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, no later than 
September 26, 1997. The agency will not formally acknowledge

[[Page 45250]]

or respond to nominations. E-Mail your questions to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#53203b32247d303b32213f363d36133623323e323a3f7d3623327d343c25"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c0b3a8a1b7eea3a8a1b2aca5aea580a5b0a1ada1a9aceea5b0a1eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a> or call 202/260-2285.

    Dated: August 18, 1997.
Charlene E. Shaw,
Designated Federal Officer, National Drinking Water Advisory Council.
[FR Doc. 97-22660 Filed 8-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and the Louisiana Wetlands Management District, Louisiana ekar B ydnaH dna ati hcauO r eppU seguf eR efil dli W l anoit aNand the Louisiana Wetlands Management District, Louisiana Comprehensive Conservation Plan Upper Ouachita and Handy Brake National Wildlife Refuges and the Louisiana Wetlands Management District, Louisiana Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Photo by:Ben Dillingham

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00715- CV

Eue Jin Jeong and/ or all other oc cupants, App ellant

v. Texas Gr eenovation, LLC, App ellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 1 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. C-1 -CV- 14- 0082 44, H ONO RAB LE ERIC SH EP P ERD, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant’s opening brief was orig inally due on Marc h 19, 2015. After this deadline passed without a brief being filed, our Clerk sent notice to appellant on Marc h 25, 2015, war ning that his brief was overdue and that the appea l could be dismiss ed for want of prosec ution if appellant did not r espond with a rea sonable explanation f or the failure by April 6, 2015. To date, appellant has 1 provided no explanation of his ong oing failure to file a brief, let alon e fi l ed one. We dismiss the appea l for wa

nt of prosec ution. 2

See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a) (1) (if appellant fails to timely file a brief, this Court is 1 empower ed to dismiss the appea l f or want of prosec ution unless appellant rea sonably explains t he failure and appe llee is not signific antly injured by

that failure ). See id. R. 42.3(b). 2__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Field Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: September

30, 2015

2
- About ARC
              - Appalachian Region
              - Program Areas
              - Grants and Funding

Research, Maps, and Data
            - Research Reports               - Asset-Based Development
              - Business
              - Demographics
              - Distressed Counties
              - Education
              - Energy
              - Evaluations
              - Export and Trade Development
              - Foundations
              - Health Care
              - Infrastructure
              - Leadership Development and Capacity Building
              - Natural Resources
              - Socioeconomic Research
              - Telecommunications
              - Tools
              - Tourism Development
              - Transportation
            - Maps               - Economic Status
              - Education
              - Geography
              - Income
              - Population
              - Poverty
              - Unemployment
            - Data Reports
            - Economic Reports

              - Newsroom
              - Publications

|  |
|--|

HomeResearch, Maps, and DataMapsEducationRelative High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2000

Print this pageEmail this page

## Relative High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2000

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)
A high school completion rate is the percentage of adults, 25 years and over, completing 12 years or more of school. The percent of the U.S. average is computed by dividing the county high school completion rate by the national average and multiplying by 100. The map uses critical breaks such as the national average to organize the data into groups of common values.

Print

PDF version of the map (980 KB)

Excel file of supporting data for the map (80KB)

Data Report

Source and Methodology

Site MapContact ARCPrivacy PolicyWeb PolicyUSA.govOffice of  Inspector General
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Corey CLARK.

No. 61490.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 28, 1978.

John M. Lawrence, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., William L. Brockman, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1


                                  Certification

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of
Digital Lifestyles Group, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify with respect
to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December
31, 2004 (the "Report") that:

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

The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



Date: April 6, 2006           By:      /s/ Andy Teng
                                       -----------------------------------------
                              Name:    Andy Teng
                              Title:   Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
                                       Officer and Chairman of the Board

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45270-45271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22599]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    Notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United 
States v. Consolidated Rail Corp., et al., Case No. S90-56M, was lodged 
with the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
Indiana, on August 12, 1997. The United States filed separate 
Complaints, later consolidated, against the Consolidated Rail Corp. and 
Penn Central Corp. to recover response costs incurred by the United 
States in connection with releases or threatened releases of hazardous 
substances at the Conrail Superfund site in Elkhart, Indiana, pursuant 
to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607, and 
for a declaratory judgment under Section 113(g)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 9613(g)(2). Under the Consent Decree, the United States will 
receive more than $7 million in reimbursement of the costs it has 
expended in responding to

[[Page 45271]]

releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances at the site, 
and the defendants will implement the remedy at the site.
    The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the 
proposed Partial Consent Decree for a period of 30 days from the date 
of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530. All comments should 
refer to United States v. Consolidated Rail Corp., et al., D.J. Ref. 
90-11-3-594. Commenters may request an opportunity for a public meeting 
in the affected area, in accordance with Section 7003(d) of the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6973(d).
    The proposed Partial Consent Decree may be examined at the offices 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois, 60604, or at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G 
Street, N.W., 4th floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, 202-624-0892. A copy 
of the proposed Partial Consent Decree may be obtained in person or by 
mail from the Consent Decree Library. In requesting a copy (without 
attachments), please enclose a check in the amount of $22.75 for the 
Decree (25 cents per page reproduction costs) payable to the Consent 
Decree Library. When requesting a copy, please refer to United States 
v. Consolidated Rail Corp. et al., D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-594.
Bruce S. Gelber,
Deputy Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-22599 Filed 8-25-97; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M