alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DLA Aviation gets a peek into a day in the life of DCMA’s specialists
 
  By Kimberly K. Fritz, DLA Aviation Public Affairs
  In a town hall discussion held Oct. 25 in the Frank B. Lotts Conference Center, Defense Logistics Agency Aviation procurement analysts, contract specialists and acquisition analysts learned how Defense Contract Management Agency’s quality assurance representatives and industrial specialists work together to deliver needed supplies, parts and equipment to the warfighter. Kerri Radziszewski, a quality assurance specialist, and Bart Stewart an industrial specialist, from DCMA Springfield, New Jersey offered their expertise and insights into their work with contracts originating from DLA Aviation. For the last two years, Rob Baker, division chief, Contract Administration Division, Supplier Operations Commodities Directorate has been visiting members of the DCMA team to solidify the partnership. “Getting started with visits to DCMA helped to move us in the right direction but we needed to get the people at the heart of the work together,” Baker said. “We invited DCMA to come down and share their experiences with post awards.” Baker praised the audience for the amazing work they do each and every day. “Thank you for what you do every day,” he said. “We started the fiscal year at 84.78 percent for on-time delivery increasing it to 89.11 percent. We’ve increased more than any other supply chain over the last year which is amazing. That includes DCMA and everyone in this room helping.” Baker also mentioned that DLA Aviation is reducing delinquencies greater than 30 and 90 days both by double digits. Stewart walked the audience through the processes DCMA uses and how DLA can interface with them. Radziszewski presented material demonstrating her duties in relation to DLA-originated contracts. Bill Reneau, contracting officer, Supplier Operations Commodities Directorate, said the face-to-face meeting was a good opportunity for more experienced individuals to have a refresher and new DLA employees to learn what the QARs and ISs do for us. 
“It was a good reminder to all who attended how each agency is dependent on the other to get the much needed supplies to the warfighter,” Reneau said. Also during the event, Baker presented two employees the Susan Perkins Award: Annette Bailey, a Supplier Operations Equipment Manufacturer Directorate contract administrator, and Ann Lacks, a Supplier Operations Commodities Directorate, purchasing agent. The award, named for a recently retired leader in the Post-Awards Division, is given, quarterly, to employees that perform at an exceptional level.
#### MERRITT SQUARE CORP., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEP'T OF REVENUE, Appellee.

No. GG-385.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 27, 1978.

Haywood M. Ball of Ulmer, Murchison, Ashby & Ball, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Joseph C. Mellichamp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

SMITH, Acting Chief Judge.

Merritt Square appeals from a circuit court judgment holding it liable to pay the tax imposed by Section 203.01, Florida Statutes (1975), on receipts collected from its shopping center tenants for electricity produced by Merritt Square and sold to its tenants. The text of the statute clearly requires payment of the tax:

> Every person . . . receiving payment for electricity for light, heat or power . . . shall report semiannually to the Department of Revenue . . . the total amount of gross receipts derived from business done within this state . . . and, at the same time, shall pay into the state treasury the sum of $1.50 upon each $100 of such gross receipts.

*144The catchline of Section 203.01 is misleadingly labeled “Public service corporations, tax upon gross receipts.” Merritt Square is not a “public service corporation” but is rather a private utility. *Department of Revenue v. Merritt Square Corp.,*334 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The misleading catchline has appeared repeatedly in Florida Statutes since 1941, and it was referred to by the legislature in the title to Chapter 57-819, Laws of Florida, which amended the statute in a manner not here pertinent. These references to “public service corporations,” though confusing and worthy of corrective legislation, are not part of and do not modify the unambiguous text of the statute. *Askew v. MGIC Development Corp. of Florida,*262 So.2d 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); *McCulley Ford, Inc. v. Calvin,*308 So.2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), *cert. denied,*314 So.2d 592 (Fla.1975). We considered Merritt Square’s other point on the appeal and find it unavailing.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.4



|     |  |                       |  |           |  |               
|---- |  | --------------------- |  | --------- |  | --------------
|LOGO |  |                       |  |           |  |               
|     |  |                       | 
|     |  | Chartered Accountants |  | Telephone |  | (403) 691-8000
|     |  | 2700-205 5 Avenue SW  |  | Telefax   |  | (403) 691-8008
|     |  | Calgary AB T2P 4B9    |  | Internet  |  | www.kpmg.ca   

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors of Agrium Inc.:

We consent to the use of our reports, each dated
February 23, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Agrium Inc. and the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting included in this amendment no. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 40-F.

We also consent to incorporation by reference of the above mentioned audit reports in Agrium Inc.s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (333-11254,
333-114276, 333-132207, 333-143334, 333-149666 and 333-161620).

KPMG LLP

Calgary, Canada

March 6, 2012

KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG

network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative

(KPMG International), a Swiss entity.

KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.
254 La. 812

#### Succession of Louis (Louie) REEVES. Ezra J. RYLAND v. John A. WENNER et al.

No. 50056.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 23, 1969.

In re: Ezra J. Ryland applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 224 So.2d 502.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the Court of Appeal judgment.
#### Jasper W. BOWDEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-892.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 29, 1969.

Jasper W. Bowden, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having filed a memorandum brief in support of his posi*242tion, and on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

FLORENCE DIVISION

Raymond Edward Chestnut, ) Civil Action No.: 1:15-cv-02770-RBH

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

Federal Bureau of Prisons, )

)

Respondent. )

______________________________)

Petitioner Raymond Edward Chestnut, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See ECF No. 1. Petitioner is currently

incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary located in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. See ECF No. 1-1

(Petitioner’s envelope from USP-Lewisburg). The matter is now before the Court for review of the

Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges. See R &

1

R, ECF No. 8. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court transfer Petitioner’s § 2241 petition to the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania for all further proceedings. R &

R at 1, 4.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has

no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. 

Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those

portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

1

73.02(B)(2)(c) for the District of South Carolina.

Case 3:15-cv-01827-WJN-DB Document 11 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 2
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R. In the absence of objections to the R & R, the

Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. 

See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the

absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.

2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct de novo

review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order

to accept the recommendation’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note)).

After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly,

the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 8] of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS

THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is TRANSFERRED to the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania for all further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina s/ R. Bryan Harwell

September 18, 2015 R. Bryan Harwell

United States District Judge

2

Case 3:15-cv-01827-WJN-DB Document 11 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Michael R. Silberstein d/b/a Michael R. Silberstein Investments, Ltd. 

v. Gloria Lewis

Appellate case number: 01-17-00294-CV

Trial court case number: 15-DCV-220243

Trial court: 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

The clerk’s record filed in this Court shows that Appellant, Michael R. Silberstein, 

timely requested findings of fact and conclusions of law and filed a notice of past-due 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 296, 297. The record, however, 

does not include the requested findings and conclusions. Acting sua sponte, we abate this 

appeal, remand the case to the trial court, and direct the court to file its findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. Id.; see also White v. Harris-White, No. 01-07-00521-CV, 2009 WL 

1493015, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 28, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.) 

(holding remedy for trial court’s failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law is to 

abate appeal and remand to trial court).

Within ten days after the trial court has filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

any party may file a request for specified additional or amended findings or conclusions. 

Id. 298. The trial court shall file any additional or amended findings that are appropriate 

within ten days after such a request is filed. Id.

The trial court clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the 

trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, any request for additional findings, 

and any additional findings of fact and conclusions of law within 30 days of the date of this 

order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active 

docket.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

Acting Individually

Date: March 15, 2018
#### James Edward HARS, Petitioner, v. STATE ATTORNEY FOR the SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT of Florida, Respondent.

No. 39326.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 18, 1970.

James Edward Hars, in pro per.

Stephen L. Boyles, State Atty. for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner is presently confined in the Federal Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, serving a five year sentence which expires on March 1, 1973. On November 26, 1968, petitioner was notified that a detainer warrant had been lodged against him based on a charge of breaking and entering and trespass in Putnam County, Florida. Thereafter, on August 11, 1969, he wrote a letter to respondent requesting him to initiate proceedings to have petitioner tried in Florida on the Florida charges. This request was not acknowledged.

This Court issued an alternative writ of mandamus and return has been made by the respondent stating that the Sheriff’s Office has been directed to withdraw the detainer in question for the reason that the State does not intend to further prosecute on the charge represented by the supporting capias. A copy of the letter to the Sheriff’s Office has been filed with this Court.

Accordingly, peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue and alternative writ of mandamus should be and is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7279

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL EUGENE GRIFFIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-92-403-A, CA-97-940-A)

Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 31, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Eugene Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Griffin, Nos. CR-92-403-A; CA-97-940-A

(E.D. Va. July 8, 1997). 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
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, William Whittle, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of General Gold Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of General Gold 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:
5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 10, 2004

/s/ William WhittleWilliam Whittle
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCommunications network design and costing model technical manualThis computer model provides the capability for analyzing long-haul trunking networks comprising a set of user-defined cities, traffic conditions, and tariff rates. Networks may consist of all terrestrial connectivity, all satellite connectivity, or a combination of terrestrial and satellite connectivity. Network solutions provide the least-cost routes between all cities, the least-cost network routing configuration, and terrestrial and satellite service cost totals. The CNDC model allows analyses involving three specific FCC-approved tariffs, which are uniquely structured and representative of most existing service connectivity and pricing philosophies. User-defined tariffs that can be variations of these three tariffs are accepted as input to the model and allow considerable flexibility in network problem specification. The resulting model extends the domain of network analysis from traditional fixed link cost (distance-sensitive) problems to more complex problems involving combinations of distance and traffic-sensitive tariffs.Document ID19840006308Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsLogan, K. P.*(Sonalysts, Inc. Waterford, CT, United States)*Somes, S. S.*(Sonalysts, Inc. Waterford, CT, United States)*Clark, C. A.*(Sonalysts, Inc. Waterford, CT, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateSeptember 30, 1983Subject CategoryCommunications And RadarReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:168236NASA-CR-168236Accession Number84N14376Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-23348Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840006308.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48343-48344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24309]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Women Veterans, Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Pub. L. 92-
463 that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans will be 
held on September 30-October 2, 1997, at the Department of Veterans 
Affairs; Washington, DC. The purpose of the Committee is to advise the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding the needs of women veterans 
with respect to health care, rehabilitation, compensation, outreach and 
other programs, and activities administered by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs designed to meet such needs. The Committee will make 
recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.
    The sessions will convene on September 30, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; 
October 1, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and conclude October 2, 9:00 a.m. to 
2:00 p.m. The Committee will meet in conference room 630, VA Central 
Office Building, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. All sessions 
will be open to the public. It will be necessary for those wishing to 
attend to contact Ms. Maryanne Carson, Department of Veterans Affairs, 
Washington, DC (phone 202-273-6193) prior to September 20, 1997. A 
tentative agenda follows:

Tuesday, September 30, 1997

9:00 am--Review of Minutes, May meeting--Chair
9:30 am--Old Business: Chair
10:00 am--Briefing: Proceedings Summit on Women Veterans--Furey
10:30 am--Break
11:00 am--Briefing: Center for Women Veterans--Furey
12:15 pm--Lunch
1:30 pm--Briefing: Veterans Health Administration Initiatives--Zeiler
2:30 pm--Break
3:00 pm--Briefing: Veterans Benefits Administration Initiatives--Petty
4:00 pm--Executive Session--Chair

[[Page 48344]]

Wednesday, October 1, 1997

9:00 am-5:00 pm
    Subcommittee Meetings: Summary of Year Activities
    Development of Plan for '98 report

Thursday, October 2, 1997

9:00 am--Subcommittee Reports: Subcommittee Chairs
11:00 am
    Presentation of Certificates: Rotating members
    Introduction of Chairperson 1998-2000

    Dated: September 8, 1997.

    By Direction of the Secretary-Designate.
Heyward Bannister,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-24309 Filed 9-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M