alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Records overhaul helps agency comply with Archives standards
 
  By Amber McSherry
                  Supervisors and data owners at all levels are required to manage records in accordance with regulation,  but this requires attention from all employees, said Cecilia Wiker, the records officer for Information Operations. Wiker leads a team of 16 records officers, including Spikes, at six sites. “It’s these little wins that keep us records managers going and re-motivates us,” she said.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          72,238
<SECURITIES>                                    90,261
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,899
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        176
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               168,668
<PP&E>                                          11,779
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,131
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,578
<BONDS>                                          4,006
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            24
<OTHER-SE>                                     152,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,131
<SALES>                                        257,143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               273,255
<CGS>                                          219,508
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,289
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 161
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,491
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,711
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,780
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,780
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29


</TABLE>
256 La. 253

#### Fellman J. PIERRE, Jr., Delores G. Pierre, and Z. T. Ramsey, Jr., d/b/a Z. T. Ramsey, Jr., Realty Company v. Walter R. CHEVALIER, Jr.

No. 50573.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 8, 1970.

In're: Walter R. Chevalier, Jr. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 233 So.2d 61.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
# DLA Aviation Fact Sheet

/ Published March 11, 2024

A major subordinate command of the Defense Logistics Agency, DLA Aviation is the aviation demand and supply chain manager for DLA and much of the Defense Department. Employing more than 4,300 civilian and military personnel in 22 locations across the United States and one location overseas. We provide aviation weapons systems and environmental logistics support to the defense aviation community and other governmental customers.

DLA Aviation supports more than 13,500 joint aircraft, 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles and a host of other weapons systems. The activity is the U.S. military’s integrated material manager for more than 1.8 million national stock number items, industrial retail supply and depot-level reparable acquisitions. DLA Aviation directly supports the warfighter through weapons systems management, industrial retail supply and strategic acquisition support operations.

DLA Aviation plays a pivotal role in supporting our Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy and Space Force by providing targeted solutions and full-spectrum logistics support. Among its unique services, DLA Aviation also operates the federal government’s only industrial plant equipment facility at Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.

In fiscal year 2023, DLA Aviation continued its track record of proven performance with $3.79 billion in sales, working closely with more than 3,200 suppliers as we processed and fulfilled 3.7 million orders from 12,678 supported customers. 

DLA Aviation -- a proud member of the nation’s combat logistics support agency.

## Major Product Lines and Services:

      - Turbine engine components
      - Airframe structural parts
      - Flight safety equipment
      - Electrical components
      - Aviation lighting
      - Bearings
      - Commodities
      - Cables
      - Hardware
      - Maps (digital and print)
      - Green products
      - Chemicals and petroleum products
      - Industrial gases
      - Industrial plant equipment

## Contact

**Public Affairs Office**6090 Strathmore RoadRichmond, Va. 23237Phone: ** (804) 279-3139www.dla.mil/Aviation
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Infinex Ventures, Inc. (the "Company") on
  10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
  De Rosa, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
  that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | 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/ Michael De
      Rosa
| | -------------------------
| | (Signature)              
| |                          
| | Chief Financial Officer  
| | (Title)                  

---
EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER 71532-1 VOL. 2 (Part 2) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
#### Donnie Michael McDANIEL v. STATE.

No. 38639.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 1969.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 221 So.2d 758.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-24-00042-CR 

 

JEFFREY DEAN STRANGE, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 100th District Court 

Carson County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 7016, Honorable Dale A. Rabe, Presiding 

August 30, 2024 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Jeffrey Dean Strange appealed from the trial court’s order revoking his deferred 

adjudication community supervision, adjudicating him guilty of evading arrest, and 

sentencing him to 70 years imprisonment. Three issues pend for review. The State 

concedes their accuracy, which will require modification of the judgment. 

Background 

The order deferring adjudication included a fine of $2,000 and restitution of $180. 

However, the trial court did not orally pronounce either after adjudicating guilt and 
2

sentencing appellant. Nevertheless, both appeared in the judgment. Moreover, the bill 

of costs required appellant to pay $35 for a precept.

Issues One and Two—Imposition of Restitution and Fine

Through his first two issues, appellant argues the $2,000 fine and $180 in 

restitution should be deleted from the judgment and bill of costs because neither were

pronounced in open court at the time of sentencing. The State concedes error; thus, we 

sustain the issues and will modify the judgment and bill of costs accordingly. 

Issue Three—Precept Fee

Via his last issue, appellant argues the $35 fee for a precept should be deleted 

from the bill of costs because statute allows only an $8 charge. The State again agrees 

with appellant. We sustain the issue and will modify the bill of costs accordingly.

The judgment of the trial court is modified to eliminate both the $2,000 fine and 

$180 assessment for restitution. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. We also modify 

the bill of costs to redact from it reference, if any, to the $2,000 fine and assessment of 

$180 in restitution. The bill of costs is further modified to reduce the precept fee from $35 

to $8. 

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
# Capabilities on Display | 3rd Medical Battalion Establishes Role II Facilities

/ Published Nov. 30, 2018
CAMP FOSTER, Okinawa, Japan, *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command website.*
No. 9570.

#### Creed *v.*Brigel et al.

(Decided February 27, 1906.)

Error to Superior Court of Cincinnati.

*Mr. Lawrence Maxwell, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Willard B. Stier,*for defendants in error.

Judgment of general term reversed and that of special term affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000682

07-APR-2015

08:50 AM
#### Doris WINSTON v. Harry ISBELL et al.

No. 45561.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 22, 1969.

Fred C. Berger, Gwin & Gwin, Natchez, for appellant.

Brandon, Hornsby, Handy, O’Beirne & Benoist, Natchez, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### WARD AIR CONDITIONING CO., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Max A. MOGUL, Appellee.

No. 76-2139.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 9, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1977.

John M. Robertson of Robertson, Williams, Duane & Lewis, P. A., Orlando, for appellant.

O. H. Eaton, Jr., of Brock, Massey, Walden, Baum & Eaton, Altamonte Springs, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We believe the second amended complaint of the appellant stated a cause of action and should not have been dismissed. See *Snead Construction Corp. v. Parkway*East, *Inc.,*324 So.2d 206 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). Accordingly, the order of dismissal entered by the trial court is reversed.

*529ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.

CROSS, J., dissents without opinion.
#### James H. FRADY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-666.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 1, 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 27, 1970.

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, William- F. Casler, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

Appellant James H. Frady was convicted after jury trial of an information charging him with violation of the Florida Drug Abuse Law. He appeals to this Court, con*57tending principally that the trial Court should have directed a verdict of not guilty or entered judgment of acquittal “based upon the defense of entrapment.” This presupposes that there was no evidence contrary to a conclusion that Frady was entrapped by the police officers. We disagree and affirm.

The testimony of State witness Louis Albach, a Clearwater police officer, is sufficient of itself to make a jury issue. He testified he met Frady while “shooting pool” on June 20, 1969; that an associate of Albach, one Tom Pellium, asked Frady if he could get him “any more blue flats”, another name for the drug L.S.D. Frady replied that he didn’t know but if he couldn’t he would try to get “something heavier, meaning stronger. A stronger dosage of L.S.D.” Albach then asked Frady to “work out a deal” for him to “buy in quantities” at reduced price. Frady asked Albach for five dollars, which Al-bach gave him. Frady later reported back to Albach and Pellium that he had been unable to get “anything” and gave back the five dollar bill. Later the same evening Frady again asked Albach if he had any money, at which time Albach gave Frady five one dollar bills. A short time later Frady came back with the drug, which he gave to Albach. Frady asked Albach if he “would want anymore”. Albach said he would “try this one out, and if it was any good” he would contact Frady later. Frady told him that it would take about a half hour for the drug to take effect and that “his source of supply, or his source, was going to be leaving the beach in about an hour”. Frady left, and soon thereafter Albach contacted the Clearwater Police Department, turned the drug over to another detective, and in due course Frady was arrested and charged with the drug violation.

The foregoing condensed version of Al-bach’s testimony was amply sufficient to make a jury question of the issue of entrapment. The jury was amply charged on entrapment and Frady’s counsel made no objection to the sufficiency of the charges. The jury resolved the issue against Frady. He has no room to complain.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
**Docket No. FAA -**  **2013 -**  **0360**

**Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted **Date** Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  2/1/13 **Regional Airline Association** 2/1/13 **Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman**  2/1/13 **ATA Joe White**  2/1/13
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,943
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,390
<ALLOWANCES>                                        99
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,671
<PP&E>                                             426
<DEPRECIATION>                                     395
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,273
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,454
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,730
<SALES>                                         11,419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,419
<CGS>                                            9,696
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    58
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,438
<INCOME-TAX>                                       687
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                751
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       751
<EPS-BASIC>                                      751<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      751
<FN>
<F1>For purposes of this exhibit, primary means basic.
</FN>



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

**Statement of Chief EXECUTIVE Officer under 18 U.S.C.** SS ** 1350**

I, Peter C. Chang, the chief executive 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 September 30, 2009(the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) 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/ Peter C. Chang          

          Peter C. Chang

          November 12, 2009
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, Sidney M. Field, ChiefExecutive Officer of Medical Capital Management, Inc., certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofMedical Capital Management, Inc.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period coveredby this quarterly report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrantand we have:

 

a)             designed such disclosure controls and procedures toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;

 

b)            evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior tothe filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c)             presented in this quarterly report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)             all significant deficiencies in the design or operationof internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified forthe registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b)            any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls; and

 

6.             The registrant’s other certifying officers and I haveindicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significantchanges in internal controls or in other factors that could significantlyaffect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.

 
| Date:  March 29, 2004 |
|----------------------------|
|                       |
| /s/ Sidney  M. Field       |   |
| Sidney M.  Field           |
| Chief  Executive Officer   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

                                 ALPHATRADE.COM

                              A Nevada corporation

                            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 AlphaTrade.com. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon Muir, 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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: April 21, 2010                      /s/ Gordon J. Muir

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

                                                   Its: Chief Executive Officer

         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 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. The foregoing certifications are

         accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of

         the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section

         1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being

         filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

                                Exhibit 32.1 - 1
#### Floyd RANDALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-167.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

July 2, 1969.

B. Anderson Mitcham, Mitcham, Leon & Guits, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of State v. Young, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 567.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.