alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Partners in Protection: Active Shooter Awareness and Response Training held on DSCR

/ Published June 30, 2017
Richmond, Virginia, 
Defense Logistics Agency Installation Support at Richmond’s Security and Emergency Services Office held Active Shooter Awareness and Response Training at Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, June 23 in the Frank B. Lotts Conference Center.

The training is part of an ongoing awareness program that helps to educate employees on a variety of security issues.

Richard Milligan, deputy chief of the SES Office, provided opening remarks. He said in light of recent world events, it is important to train for the active shooter scenario as it can happen anywhere.

Russell Pitts, anti-terrorism officer, and Don Bartlett, criminal intelligence analyst in the SES office tag teamed the training, leading employees through recent case studies, characteristics of an active shooter, pre-attack indicators and how to respond to an active shooter.

Pitts reviewed characteristics and pre-attack indicators for attendees and also showed the Run, Hide, Fight: Surviving an Active Shooter Event video.

Bartlett said one of the pieces of intelligence he gathered after the 2016 Pulse Night Club Terrorist Attack in Orlando, Florida, was that there was no evidence of anyone fighting to survive. 

“If you cannot run or hide, you have to be prepared and committed to fighting to advance your chances of survival,” said Bartlett.“Terrorists and active shooters have a mindset of destruction and statistics show that 49 percent of active shooters also commit suicide during the event.”He went on to say that it is important to know that active shooters typically do not target areas where people are likely to fight back, do not typically take hostages and typically do not spend much time trying to breach locked or barricaded areas. 

Bartlett said one of the first things employee need to do is overcome denial.“If you hear gunfire, don’t rationalize what is happening, take action and ask questions later,” he said. 

DSCR supervisors interested in fine-tuning active shooter response plans and procedures in their work areas may contact Bartlett at donald.bartlett@dla.mil, 804-279-3385 or Pitts at russell.pitts@dla.mil, 804-279-4087.
Summary of compensation plan for outside directors



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Adoption of Compensation Plan for Outside Directors 
 On September 17, 2007, the Board, upon the recommendation
of the Compensation Committee of the Board, adopted a compensation plan for outside directors, as defined by the Board. The Board’s current outside directors are Emiliano Calemzuk and Ms. Serra. Under the terms of the plan, the outside
directors will receive an annual cash retainer fee of $30,000 and an annual grant of restricted Common Stock (“Restricted Shares”). As of September 17, 2007, the Company awarded each of Mr. Calemzuk and Ms. Serra 1,000
Restricted Shares for their original grants. On the first anniversary of each director’s respective original Restricted Shares grant date, each outside director will receive a grant of additional Restricted Shares having a value equal to
$30,000, based on the closing sale price of the Common Stock on the prior trading day. On the second anniversary of each director’s respective original Restricted Shares grant date, each outside director will receive a grant of additional
Restricted Shares having a value equal to $40,000, based on the closing sale price of the Common Stock on the prior trading day. Each grant of Restricted Shares will vest twelve months following the grant date. Restricted Shares will be granted
pursuant to the Company’s Amended and Restated 1999 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan. The Company reimburses nonemployee directors for actual travel and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with attending meetings of the Board
and committees of the Board. The following chart summarizes the annual compensation plan for outside directors: 
  

					
	 	 	 Cash Retainer
	 	 FMV of Restricted Share Grant(2)

	 Year 1(1)

	 	$30,000	 	$27,750
	 Year 2(1)

	 	$30,000	 	$30,000
	 Year 3(1)

	 	$30,000	 	$40,000



	 (1)
	 Paid and issued on each outside director’s election date with respect to Year
1 and the first and second anniversary date of each such election date with respect to Years 2 and 3, respectively. 



	 (2)
	 Based on the closing sale price of the Company’s common stock on the business
day prior to the outside director’s (i) election date with respect to Year 1 and (ii) first and second anniversary date of election date with respect to Years 2 and 3, respectively.
#### In the Matter of the Succession of William W. HARLEAUX.

No. 11514.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

July 10, 1978.

*262Milton Osborne, Jr. and Albert T. Richard, Osborne & Richard, Plaquemine, for succession, appellee.

Frederick Kroenke, Jr. of McCollister, Belcher, McCleary & Fazio, Baton Rouge, for American Bank and Trust Co., in its capacity as trustee of William W. Harleaux, trust.

Murphy W. Bell, Baton Rouge, for defendants in rule, appellants.

Before BLANCHE, COVINGTON and CHIASSON, JJ.

BLANCHE, Judge.

This case was remanded to this Court to rule on the merit of the intervenor’s appeal from the judgment of the trial court awarding attorney’s fees and legal interest.

This Court had held that the beneficiaries of a trust were indispensable parties to an action brought against the trust. *Succession of Harleaux,*351 So.2d 1267 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1977).

In remanding the case, the Supreme Court stated:

> “Rather than reinstate the trial court’s judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the trustee awarding attorney’s fees in the sum of $2,218.30 plus legal interest, we find it necessary to remand the case to the Court of Appeal which because of its disposition of the case did not reach the issue of the propriety of that judgment. That issue is properly presented by the appeal taken by interve-nors. * * * ”

As a footnote to the above statement, the Supreme Court wrote:

> “While an intervenor may not retard the progress of a suit by excepting to the form of the proceedings he may, like a person who could intervene [C.C.Pr. Art. 2086], appeal an adverse judgment.”

In view of the fact that in the original rule the trustee was the defendant and made no objection to the proceedings, we are in accord with the trial court judgment which awarded the law firm of Osborne and Richard the sum of $2,218.30 plus legal interest from June 23, 1975, against the American Bank & Trust Company in its capacity as trustee of the William W. Har-leaux trust. Accordingly, we so order this portion of the trial court judgment to be made final.

For these reasons, that portion of the judgment of the trial court awarding attorney’s fees and legal interest is affirmed. All costs are to be taxed equally between appellants, Florence B. Harleaux, William W. Harleaux, Jr., and Linda Harleaux Spottsville, and appellees, Osborne and Richard.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2532

LISA MURRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOL Z. ROSEN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-476-A) Submitted: June 21, 2004 Decided: July 28, 2004 Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lisa Murray, Appellant Pro Se. Sol Z. Rosen, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lisa Murray appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to her former attorney in her malpractice action against him. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Murray v. Rosen , No. CA-03-476-A (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 25, 2003 & entered Nov. 26, 2003). To the extent that Murray appeals the district court’s order for the reasons as stated from the bench on November 14, 2003, the record does not contain a transcript of that hearing. An appellant has the burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R. 10(c). An appellant proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis is entitled to transcripts at government expense only in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2000). By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at government expense, Murray has waived review of the issues on appeal that depend upon the transcript to show error. SeePowell v. Estelle , 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992); Keller v. Prince George’s County , 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). As no error appears on the record before us and because Murray does not present a substantial question on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), we find that she does not qualify for production of a transcript at government expense.- 3 - We deny Rosen’s motion to strike Murray’s informal brief and 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
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1721. JOSE DE LA ROSA et al. v. MATTHEW FRADY.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. Following

an adverse ruling, defendants Jose and Keila De La Rosa appealed to the state court. 

The state court also ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the De La Rosas appeal. We,

however, lack jurisdiction.

Because the order at issue disposes of a de novo appeal from a magistrate court

decision, the De La Rosas were required to follow the discretionaryappeal procedures

to obtain review before this Court. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11); Strachan v. Meritor

Mtg. Corp. East, 216 Ga. App. 82 (453 SE2d 119) (1995). Their failure to do so

deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

06/03/2016

June 03, 2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PHOENIX GOLD
INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ITS ANNUAL REPORT ON
FORM 10-KSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 29, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  SEP-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                                   2,599
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        5,119,360
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                          8,971,560
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    14,904,724
<PP&E>                                               5,764,152
<DEPRECIATION>                                       1,825,362
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      19,832,527
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                8,871,534
<BONDS>                                                171,995
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                             7,477,939
<OTHER-SE>                                           3,311,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        19,832,527
<SALES>                                             26,563,142
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    26,563,142
<CGS>                                               20,432,478
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       28,359,532
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    (260,233)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (2,037,128)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           767,986
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (1,269,142)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (1,269,142)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (0.37)

        

</TABLE>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23348]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 151

[CGD 97-015]
RIN 2115-AF43

Antarctic Treaty Environmental Protection Protocol

AGENCY: Coast Guard.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: On April 14, 1997, the Coast Guard published a direct final 
rule (62 FR 18043; CGD 97-015). This direct final rule notified the 
public of the Coast Guard's intent to establish regulations to 
implement the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996. 
These regulations should guide U.S. owned and/or operated vessels to 
properly prepare for voyages in the Antarctic. They also harmonize U.S. 
regulations with international standards, and improve preparedness to 
respond to a spill. The Coast Guard has not received an adverse 
comment, or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment, objecting to 
this rule as written. Therefore, this rule will go into effect as 
scheduled.

DATES: The effective date of the direct final rule is confirmed as 
September 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Ray Perry, Project Manager, 
Office of Environmental Standards (G-MSO), telephone (202) 267-2714.

    Dated: August 22, 1997.
R.C. North,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety 
and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 97-23348 Filed 8-28-97; 3:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
```
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 Alternate Energy Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ended June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Blaine Froats, Chief Executive Officer 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 to my knowledge:


1. The Report fully complies with the requirement 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.



By: /s/ Blaine Froats

-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer
August 9, 2005
No. 00-7210.

#### Ramirez-Tovar *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David L. BAGLEY.

No. 60640.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 11, 1977.

In re: David L. Bagley, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ denied. Since relator cannot be sentenced to jail under La.R.S. 32:415, *Argersinger v. Hamlin,*407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972) is not applicable here. Hence, ruling of trial judge is correct.

SANDERS, C. J., concurs in the denial of the writ.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the (i) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-123379) pertaining to the SureWest Communications 2000 Equity
Incentive plan, (ii) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-42870) pertaining to the SureWest Communications 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, (iii) Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-42868) pertaining to the SureWest Communications 1999 Restricted Stock Bonus Plan and (iv) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-87222) pertaining to the
SureWest KSOP of our reports dated March 14, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of SureWest Communications, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of SureWest Communications, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Sacramento,
California
March 14, 2008

---



QuickLinks
#### Terry CALDWELL et al. v. ROBERTSON TANK LINES, INC., et al.

No. 62249.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 2, 1978.

In re: Terry Caldwell, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of St. Charles.

Not considered. Not timely filed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 45394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22818]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 916]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Minnesota Mining & 
Manufacturing Company; (Pharmaceutical Products) Los Angeles, 
California

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To 
provide for the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, 
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved;
    Whereas, an application from the Board of Harbor Commissioners of 
the City of Los Angeles, California, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 202, 
for authority to establish special-purpose subzone status at the 
pharmaceutical manufacturing plant of the Minnesota Mining & 
Manufacturing Company, in Los Angeles, California, was filed by the 
Board on May 15, 1996, and notice inviting public comment was given in 
the Federal Register (FTZ Docket 41-96, 61 FR 26157, 5-24-96); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application 
is in the public interest;
    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status at the pharmaceutical manufacturing plant of the Minnesota 
Mining & Manufacturing Company, located in Los Angeles, California 
(Subzone 202A), at the location described in the application, and 
subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including 
Sec. 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of August 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 97-22818 Filed 8-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
**Exhibit
      31.1**


**RULE
      13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION**





I,
      John
      C. Roman, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Naugatuck Valley Financial
      Corporation;





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
      fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
      in
      light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this report;





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
      condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
      for, the periods presented in this report;





4.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
      and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:





a)    designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
      and
      procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
      is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
      period in which this report is being prepared;





b)    evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
      presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
      this
      report based on such evaluation; and





c)    disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter
      that
      has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
      registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





5.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
      registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
      (or persons performing the equivalent function):





a)    all
      significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
      report financial information; and





b)    any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting.





Date:
      November 5, 2007








By:
      /s/ John C. Roman


President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9 - 0201 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. TIFFANY ANN OPITZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 8 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 25 2020

03/25/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0201