alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Former Europe distribution center commander returns to DLA 

/ Published April 16, 2018
GERMERSHEIM, Germany, Army Col. Krista M. Hoffman has been announced as the incoming commander to DLA Europe & Africa.  She previously served as commander of DLA Distribution Europe, located in Germersheim, Germany.
She is currently a U.S. Army War College fellow at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  

Hoffman served as DLA Distribution Europe commander from June 2014 to June 2016, during which time her team provided support to all surrounding combatant commands, building the organization to serve as the logistics hub of Europe. She was awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Award for her efforts as commander.  

Under her command, DLA Distribution Europe directly supported operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Eastern Africa, Eastern Europe, and deployed task forces in the Balkans, Black Sea, and in the Sinai. Further, DLA Distribution Europe supported DLA’s efforts in response to anti-Ebola efforts via Operation United Assistance.

In support of these missions, DLA Distribution Europe released from stock and trans-shipped approximately 505,000 Materiel Release Orders to the warfighters of U.S. Africa Command, Central Command and European Command. 

The organization also collaborated with the service components of USAFRICOM and USEUCOM in the realization and expansion of numerous opportunities that reduced cost, decreased customer wait time, and increased readiness of the DOD.  This includes the assumption of distribution of sustainment cargo for U.S. forces in Kosovo, and, in July 2014, the organization added APO mail to its mission, saving approximately $700,000 in transportation charges.
1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 17-1376V 

 Filed: July 24, 2018 

UNPUBLISHED 

NATHAN COULTER, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; 

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA) 

   

Ann Mayhew Golski, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner. 

Ilene Clair Albala, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On September 28, 2017, Nathan Coulter (“petitioner”) filed a petition for 

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. 

§300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered right 

shoulder injuries as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 16, 

2016. Petition at 1-2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the 

Office of Special Masters. 

On July 23, 2018, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that 

petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. 

Specifically, respondent states that “the bursitis petitioner suffered is consistent with a 

shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (‘SIRVA’), a Table injury, following 

                                                            

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
2

administration of the flu vaccine he received on October 16, 2016.” Id. at 5. 

Respondent further agrees that “[b]ased on the medical records outlined above, 

petitioner met the statutory requirements by suffering the condition for more than six 

months. Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all 

legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 5-6. 

 In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1989 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1989

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, Rhode Island, shall be known and 
          designated as the ``Holly A. Charette Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. HOLLY A. CHARETTE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, Rhode Island, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Holly A. Charette Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Holly A. 
Charette Post Office''.

            Passed the Senate November 18, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1989

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, Rhode Island, shall be known and 
          designated as the ``Holly A. Charette Post Office''.
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
September 9, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company as of the
dates and for the periods referred to in the Form 10-Q.
 /s/ Eric J. FossEric J. FossPresident and Chief Executive OfficerOctober 17, 2006
<PAGE>

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 March 31, 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
MAY 12, 2005
Case 4:05-cv-00851-JEJ-JVW Document 12 Filed 07/22/05 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:05-cv-00851-JEJ-JVW Document 12 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Merlin A. HASSELBECK.

No. 62235.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 2, 1978.

In re: Merlin A. Hasselbeck, applying for writs of certiorari, review, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied.
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 A lexandria. 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 andfind 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 thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 10.1
 THE PBG DIRECTORS STOCK PLAN
(As Amended and Restated as of March 27, 2008)
 1. Purposes
  2. Effective Date
  3. Administration
  4. Eligibility
  5. Initial Award
  1




---



##### 



provided however
 6. Annual Stock Option Award
 provided however
  provided however
 2




---



##### 



7. Annual Restricted Stock Unit Award
 provided however
    3




---



##### 



provided however
     8. Non-Executive Chair Annual Award
  4




---



##### 



9. Shares of Stock Subject to the Plan
  10. Deferral of Initial Awards
 i.e.
 5




---



##### 



11. Dilution and Other Adjustments
  12. Effect of Misconduct
  13. Withholding Taxes and Section 409A
   6




---



##### 



i.e.
  14. Resale Restrictions, Assignment and Transfer
   7




---



##### 



15. Funding
  16. Supersession of Prior Plan
  17. Duration, Amendments and Terminations
 provided however provided further however provided
further however
 8
No. 00-7246.

#### Parker *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# TGA Data from Lot 2904 **Company Sanitized**
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

Application of ) 

 ) 

AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. ) 

 ) DOCKETS OST-2005-21605 

 for renewal of exemption authority ) OST-2005-23435 

(Durango-Chicago; Mexico City- ) 

San Antonio) ) 

__________________________________________) 

AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION OF 

AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. 

FOR RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION 

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: 

John R. Mietus, Jr. 

Law Office of John Mietus, LLC 

6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 300 

Bethesda, MD 20817-7500 

(202) 747-5212 

(240) 396-5362 fax 

john@mietuslaw.com 

Counsel for AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, 

S.A. DE C.V.

 

February 1, 2013
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

Application of ) 

 ) 

AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. ) 

 ) DOCKETS OST-2005-21605 

 for renewal of exemption authority ) OST-2005-23435 

(Durango-Chicago; Mexico City- ) February 1, 2013 

San Antonio) ) 

__________________________________________) 

AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION OF 

AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. 

FOR RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION 

 By application dated November 30, 2012, Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de 

C.V. ("Aeromexico") requested renewal of the above-captioned exemption 

authority to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, 

property, and mail between Durango, Mexico and Chicago, Illinois in Docket 

OST-2005-21605 and between Mexico City and San Antonio, Texas in Docket 

OST-2005-23435. Those requests were included in an application that 

aggregated renewal applications from ten separate dockets. 

 Aeromexico respectfully amends its application to request that its 

authority to conduct services in those two markets be renewed, but limited to 

services conducted by displaying the “AM” designator code on flights operated 

by Aerolitoral, S.A. de C.V. d/b/a Aeromexico Connect. Aerolitoral received 

exemption authority, and a statement of authorization to display the “AM”
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive and Acting Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350**

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Executive Officer of Golden Spirit Enterprises Ltd.  (the "Company"),  hereby certify, based on  my  knowledge,  that  the Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-QSB of the Company  for  the  quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies  with  the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934   and  that  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition  and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 15, 2007 

/s/Robert Klien 

Robert Klien

President/Director
Exhibit 15.1


                           Accountants' Acknowledgment


The Board of Directors
The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.:

The Owners of
Bottling Group, LLC:

With respect to the  registration  statements  listed below,  we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our reports dated  September 28, 2004 related to
our reviews of The Pepsi Bottling Group,  Inc. and Bottling  Group,  LLC interim
financial information.

o  Form S-8 dated May 26, 1999                 (File No. 333-79357)
o  Form S-8 dated May 26, 1999                 (File No. 333-79369)
o  Form S-8 dated May 26, 1999                 (File No. 333-79375)
o  Form S-8 dated May 26, 1999                 (File No. 333-79365)
o  Form S-8 dated June 14, 1999                (File No. 333-80647)
o  Form S-8 dated September 19, 2001           (File No. 333-69622)
o  Form S-8 dated November 14, 2001            (File No. 333-73302)
o  Form S-8 dated August 3, 2004               (File No. 333-117894)

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the  Securities  Act of 1933 (the Act),  such reports
are not considered part of a registration  statement prepared or certified by an
accountant, or reports prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



/s/ KPMG LLP
New York, New York
October 13, 2004
#### Daniel J. CASALE v. CITY OF MIAMI.

No. 38704.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
#### Veronica STOPKO and John Stopko, her husband, Appellants, v. Penn Dunlop FARRINGTON and Cecil Farrington, Appellees.

No. 69-327.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 6, 1970.

Milton Kelner, of Kelner & Lewis, Miami, for appellants.

Dieter K. Gunther, of Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

MCDONALD, PARKER LEE, Associate Judge.

The appellants were plaintiffs in an action for damages against the appellees for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. The trial resulted in a jury verdict in the sum of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000.00) for Mrs. Stopko and Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) for Mr. Stopko.

The trial judge entered an order granting the defendants a new trial on the issues of damages only unless the plaintiffs filed a remittitur of Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500.00) on the verdict entered for Mrs. Stopko and a remittitur of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,-500.00) on the verdict for Mr. Stopko. The grounds assigned by the trial judge for his *29order were that the verdict was excessive, shocked the judicial conscience and was so grossly excessive as to manifest on its face that the jury was swayed by sympathy, passion or prejudice and/or was swayed by matters outside the record and/or was misled by the remarks of counsel in closing arguments. The appellants have declined to file the remittitur.

This court recognizes the rule that a motion for new trial is directed to the sound, broad discretion of the trial judge and that the ruling on such a motion should not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that such discretion has been abused. Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669; Kraus v. Osteen, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 885; Russo v. Clark, Fla. 1962, 147 So.2d 1.

In Russo v. Clark, the Court stated: “Nevertheless, this Court has consistently held that such an order may be reviewed on the record for the purpose of ascertaining whether the exercise of judicial discretion implicit in the order has been abused. If abuse of discretion is apparent from the record, then the order of the trial judge, in an appropriate appellate proceeding, may, and should be, set aside.” This principle is also enunciated in Kraus v. Osteen, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 855; North Dade Imported Motors v. Brundage Motors, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 170; Bailey v. Sympson, Fla.App. 1963, 148 So.2d 729 and others.

We have carefully reviewed the record. A summary of the record would serve no useful purpose. This study, however, which included argument of counsel as well as all the evidence in the case, directs us to the conclusion that in this instance the trial judge abused his discretion in entering the order granting a new trial.

The order granting a new trial unless the plaintiffs filed a remittitur is reversed and the trial judge is directed to enter judgment on the jury verdict.

Reversed.

CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1694 

To require the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a report describing 

the method by which existing reporting systems within the Department 

of Energy can be coordinated to provide timely reporting of significant 

supply interruptions in the transmission of petroleum and petroleumrelated products. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 

Mr. BURR (for himself and Mr. ALLEN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress 

a report describing the method by which existing reporting systems within the Department of Energy can be 

coordinated to provide timely reporting of significant 

supply interruptions in the transmission of petroleum 

and petroleum-related products. 

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

•S 1694 IS

1 SECTION 1. REPORT ON CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR SIGNIFI2 CANT INTERRUPTIONS IN ENERGY TRANS3 MISSION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the 

5 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy 

6 shall submit to Congress a report describing existing plans 

7 and procedures of the Department of Energy relating to 

8 a significant interruption, as determined by the Secretary, 

9 in the transmission of petroleum or a petroleum-related 

10 product. 

11 (b) INCLUSIONS.—The report under subsection (a) 

12 shall include— 

13 (1) a description of the method by which the 

14 Secretary shall notify the Governor and any Federal 

15 elected official of a State affected by a significant 

16 interruption in the transmission of petroleum or a 

17 petroleum-related product; and 

18 (2) recommendations with respect to any legis19 lative action relating to the implementation or effi20 ciency of a contingency plan of the Department of 

21 Energy. 

Æ
#### Marvin H. NEWKIRK, Petitioner, v. R. O. CROSBY and Stan Russ, Respondents.

No. 77-1039.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 24, 1978.

Stephen D. Converse and Robert J. Shapiro, Legal Intern, Belle Glade, for petitioner.

Sidney C. Wood, West Palm Beach, and Sales & Christiansen, Palm Beach, for respondent Crosby.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the interlocutory discovery order complained of will cause him injury throughout the remainder of the proceeding or that there will be an inadequate remedy for any such injury by appeal after final judgment. *Johnson*v. *General Motors Corp.,*350 So.2d 1119 (4th DCA 1977). *Brown v. Bridges,*327 So.2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

ALDERMAN, C. J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.

DAUKSCH, J., dissents, with opinion.

DAUKSCH, Judge,

dissenting:

I must respectfully dissent. I would grant certiorari and quash the order denying the motion to compel.

Petitioner has alleged the Respondent Russ was an employee of Respondent Crosby and that Russ wrongfully evicted and assaulted Petitioner while acting as an employee of Crosby.

Crosby has denied much of the complaint and alleges his relationship with Russ is one of lessor-lessee not principal-agent. He says Russ’ actions are not to be imputed to Crosby because Russ merely subleased to Petitioner.

During the taking of Crosby’s deposition certain questions were asked which con*432cerned; one, the relationship of Russ to Crosby; two, the ownership by Crosby of a particular pool hall; three, Crosby’s practices as to rent collection at other properties; and four, whether Crosby has agreements with others similar to the one with Russ.

The question on appeal is whether this interrogation seeks relevant or material evidence or could lead to the discovery of relevant or material evidence. My answer is yes and I feel the trial court departed, from the essential requirements of law when it refused to compel the answers.. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280. *Murray Van and Storage, Inc. v. Murray,*343 So.2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
#### Ronald R. HANSEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-397.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Oct. 2, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Billy Merrill BRUNT, d/b/a Mr. Bond v. COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE of the State of Mississippi.

No. 50036.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 28, 1977.

Caldwell, Lee, Richardson & Vance, L. Joe Lee, Jackson, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by J. B. Gar-retty, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., ROBERTSON, BROOM and LEE, JJ., concur.

BOWLING, J., took no part.