alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Indian Navy 3-star visits DLA Distribution to discuss best practices

/ Published Nov. 16, 2018
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
To educate the organization’s partners and customers from India on DLA’s global logistics network and best practices, DLA Distribution commanding officer Navy Supply Corps Rear Adm. Kevin Jones hosted Indian Navy Controller of Logistics Vice Adm. Sunil Anand and several other delegation members Nov. 6.

Anand opened the meeting by personally greeting everyone in the room, stating “It is a great honor to be here. We want to see how both countries can benefit from our experiences.”

First, Jones and his leadership team highlighted DLA Distribution’s network of distribution centers around the globe, explaining how each site is strategically located to provide tailored services to local customers. 

The visitors were particularly interested in DLA Distribution’s expeditionary capability, which can provide a quick and agile Distribution response to satisfy emergent or surging requirements.  

Additionally, the group questioned how DLA keeps track of its customer deliveries to provide in-transit visibility.  

Anand explained that [his organization] distributes parts to Navy warships in Bombay, and, after the item ships, it is not visible in the supply chain. “We are trying to see if there is something better we can do.  We are trying to extract something we can use,” he said. 

Anand and his team also inquired about how Distribution manages its budget.  Jones explained that DLA Distribution operates under a Working Capital Fund, whereby it balances sales to ensure the organization has enough cash to pay its expenses and that the number of employees on its rolls is commensurate to current workload. 

Distribution’s modernization strategy to employ goods to man, and utilize wireless and mobile technologies to increase productivity while reducing complexity and cost was also of great interest to Anand and his team. However, Anand also noted that, “Automation cannot eliminate the human being.” 

At the conclusion of the briefing, Anand stated, “This was a wonderful presentation. Thank you for educating us.”  

To provide a more tangible example of how DLA Distribution manages the distribution of supplies to customers, the group closed out its visit with a stop at DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pa.’s Eastern Distribution Center.  Anand and his team were very intrigued by the processes and infrastructure within the EDC, asking pointed questions about the technology and metrics to better understand the mechinisms behind the largest distribution center within the Department of Defense.
San Joaquin’s Aguilar honored as top employee at annual DLA award ceremony
 
  By DLA Distribution Public Affairs
  Gerald Aguilar, distribution process worker at DLA Distribution San Joaquin, California, was honored as one of the Top 10 Employees of the year at the 51st annual employee recognition ceremony Dec. 13 for his contributions to the distribution center’s Consolidation and Containerization Point operations.  DLA director Army Lt. Gen. Darrell Williams, along with Distribution’s commanding officer Navy Supply Corps Rear Adm. Kevin Jones were on hand to present the award during the ceremony held at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Aguilar works in the CCP branch’s inbound operations where he works the offload and tally process.  In this role, he receives and delivers inbound materiel for multiple organizations on the installation, to include the CCP, Medical Maintenance, Automated Materiel Handling System Division, Hazardous Brand and Base Supply.  DLA Distribution San Joaquin commander Marine Col. Andre Harrell describes Aguilar as “a true team player who puts forth an outstanding effort each day.”  In the past fiscal year, Aguilar was instrumental in the receipt of more than 410,000 pieces of materiel, including 5.8 million cubic-feet of cargo, exceeding 35,000 metric tons in direct support of more than 4,000 Department of Defense Account Activity Codes, 12 Break Bulk Points, and four Theater Consolidation and Shipping Points in the Indian Ocean and Pacific Command Areas of Responsibility.  Anticipating the start of a $6.7 million CCP redesign project, Aguilar helped organize, relocate and set up a new inbound operation in a temporary location.  His expert and detailed management of this transition ensured the CCP maintained or exceeded all surface and air metrics throughout the nine month CCP redesign installation period. Simultaneously, the CCP received a 35 percent increase in workload and still outperformed the metric standard.  As the CCP branch safety representative, Aguilar conducted bi-monthly walk through safety inspections, looking for discrepancies and hazards.  His involvement helped ensure a safe work environment for his team and contributed to a 33 percent reduction in materiel handling mishaps.  “’Warfighter First’ is embedded in Mr. Aguilar’s mindset and shows in the dedication he displays in his assignments.  He is an example every employee and manager should emulate,” said Harrell.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24086]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-1-55-000]


Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

September 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 2, 1997, Questar Pipeline Company 
(Questar) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, the 
following tariff sheets, to be effective October 1, 1997:

First Revised Volume No. 1

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 5
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 5A
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 6
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 6A

Original Volume No. 3

Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 8

    Questar states that this filing incorporates into its storage and 
transportation rates the annual charge unit rate of $0.00224 per Dth.
    Questar states that copies of this filing were served upon 
Questar's customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the 
Wyoming Public Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-24086 Filed 9-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Curtis McNAIR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-800.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 31, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Mark King Leban, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Ronald A. Dion, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and HEN-DRY and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Curtis McNair appeals his conviction for carrying a concealed firearm and first urges as reversible error the denial of his motion to suppress the pistol seized from his apartment pursuant to a warrantless search where there were no exigent circumstances or other recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.

The record reflects to the contrary. Officer Allen, who searched the apartment, testified that he observed McNair who was some 30 to 35 feet away from his apartment pull a pistol from his pocket, turn and walk about 15 feet and then throw the pistol to his wife standing on the porch in front of their apartment. She took the pistol and tossed it inside the apartment. Officer Allen, not knowing if anyone was in the apartment, became concerned for his safety and that of others based upon the possibility that someone could have been inside and could have access to the pistol. He thereupon removed McNair’s wife who was blocking the entrance, entered the apartment and retrieved the pistol. This constituted sufficient evidence of exigent circumstances. See *McGeehan v. Wainwright,*526 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1976); *U. S. v. Bowdach,*414 F.Supp. 1346 (S.D.Fla.1976).

McNair next argues that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because he was exempted from the crime charged in that he carried the firearm at his own home pursuant to Section 790.25(3)(n), Florida Statutes (1975).

This argument is without merit as McNair was carrying the pistol on his person when he was about 30 to 35 feet from his apartment. See *Facion*v. *State,*290 So.2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); *Rash v. State,*331 So.2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                       12,822,000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                      19,986,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                               6,523,000
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,509,000
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                             0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                              0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                    9,835,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                          9,835,000
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                190,000
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                    18,237,000
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                       18,944,150
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                       18,944,150
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                 (12,676,000)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                      8,263,000
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                     2,663,000
<NET-ASSETS>                                16,674,000
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                                6,000
<INTEREST-INCOME>                               69,000
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                               1,490,000
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                    (2,514,000)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                     3,032,000
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                    (946,000)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                          961,000
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                            0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                              0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                          0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                                  0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                   (11,020,000)
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                    6,622,000
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,099,000
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                              2,589,000
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                        15,531,000
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                             1.16
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                  (.11)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                           0.04
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                            0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                               0.89
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                      0
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>                      12,953,000
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>                              0.69


</TABLE>
Report of Independent Public Accountants


To Household Finance Corporation:

We have audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards,
the consolidated financial statements of Household Finance Corporation (the
"Company") and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and have issued our
report thereon dated January 23, 1997.  We have not audited any financial
statements of the Company as of any date or for any period subsequent to
December 31, 1996, or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date
of our report on those statements.

In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to
believe that the Company was not in compliance with any of the terms,
covenants, provisions, or conditions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
(the "Agreement"), dated May 1, 1995, in conjunction with the Revolving
Home Equity Loan Asset Backed Certificates Series 1995-1 insofar as they
relate to accounting matters.  It should be noted, however, that our audit was
not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of such noncompliance.

As a part of our audit, we made a study and evaluation of the Company's
system of internal accounting controls over the Company's home equity loan
portfolio, including those loans serviced under the Agreement to the extent we
considered necessary to evaluate the system as required by generally accepted
auditing standards.  In accordance with these standards, the purpose of our
study and evaluation, which included obtaining an understanding of the
accounting systems, was to determine the nature, timing and extent of the
auditing procedures necessary for expressing an opinion on the financial
statements.  Our study and evaluation also took into consideration certain of
the criteria and audit requirements in the Audit Guide for Audits of Non-
Supervised Mortgages Approved by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.  However, certain procedures included in the audit guide are
not applicable to the home equity loans being serviced for the Trustee, and
therefore, were not performed.

Our audit disclosed no exceptions or errors in records relating to home equity
loans serviced for the Trustee that, in our opinion, Section 3.10 of the
Agreement required us to report.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of
Directors and management of the Company and should not be used for any
other purpose.



Chicago, Illinois
January 23,  1997
# EUR-Lex - 41999Y0528(02) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 41999Y0528(02)

**Council Decision of 29 April 1999 extending Europol's mandate to deal with forgery of money and means of payment **

*
Official Journal C 149 , 28/05/1999 P. 0016 - 0017 *

COUNCIL DECISION

of 29 April 1999

extending Europol's mandate to deal with forgery of money and means of payment

(1999/C 149/02)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Convention, based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention)(1), and in particular Article 2(2) thereof and the Annex to the Convention mentioned in the said Article,

Having regard to the Council Decision of 3 and 4 December 1998 on the principle of instructing Europol to deal with forgery of money and means of payment when Europol takes up its activities, instructing the Management Board of Europol to prepare the Council's Decision on this issue,

Having regard to the preparatory work on this issue performed by the Europol Management Board in particular regarding the functional, budgetary and staffing implications for Europol,

Considering the need for a separate decision on the budgetary and staffing implications for Europol,

Taking into account the considerable interests of the European Union and its Member States in protecting the euro from any counterfeiting and in effectively preventing related criminal activities,

Taking into account, and without prejudice to, the respective roles of Europol, the Commission (Unit on Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF)) and the European Central Bank,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

As from the date when Europol takes up its activities in accordance with Article 45(4) of the Europol Convention Europol's mandate shall be extended to include the fight against forgery of money and means of payment.

Article 2

For the purposes of this Decision, the terms "forgery of money" and "forgery of means of payment" shall mean the acts defined in Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 20 April 1929 on the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency(2), which applies to both cash and other means of payment.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its adoption.

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal.

Done at Luxembourg, 29 April 1999.

For the Council

The President

W. MÜLLER

(1) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 1.

(2) Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 20 April 1929 states:

"The following should be punishable as ordinary crimes:

1. Any fraudulent making or altering of currency, whatever means are employed;

2. The fraudulent uttering of counterfeit currency;

3. The introduction into a country of or the receiving or obtaining of counterfeit currency with a view to uttering the same and with knowledge that it is counterfeit;

4. Attempts to commit, and any intentional participation in, the foregoing acts;

5. The fraudulent making, receiving or obtaining of instruments or other articles peculiarly adapted for the counterfeiting or altering of currency.

"
# L_2023149EN.01008001.xml

| 9.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 149/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 149/80

---

DECISION (EU) 2023/1135 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES

of 7 June 2023

appointing a judge to the Court of Justice

THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 253 and 255 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The terms of office of 14 Judges and six Advocates-General of the Court of Justice, including that of Mr Marko ILEŠIČ, expired on 6 October 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The terms of office of 14 Judges and six Advocates-General of the Court of Justice, including that of Mr Marko ILEŠIČ, expired on 6 October 2021.

| (2) | An appointment to this post should therefore be made for the term of office starting on the date of entry into force of this Decision and expiring on 6 October 2027. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

An appointment to this post should therefore be made for the term of office starting on the date of entry into force of this Decision and expiring on 6 October 2027.

| (3) | It has been proposed that the term of office of Mr Marko ILEŠIČ as Judge of the Court of Justice be renewed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It has been proposed that the term of office of Mr Marko ILEŠIČ as Judge of the Court of Justice be renewed.

| (4) | The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given a favourable opinion on the suitability of this candidate to perform the duties of Judge of the Court of Justice, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given a favourable opinion on the suitability of this candidate to perform the duties of Judge of the Court of Justice,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Marko ILEŠIČ is hereby appointed Judge to the Court of Justice for the period from the date of entry into force of this Decision to 6 October 2027.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 7 June 2023.

The President

L. DANIELSSON

---
No. 00-7328.

#### Rosengard *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 172 (Friday, September 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23701]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, September 10, 1997.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street 
entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to 
the Board; (202) 452-3204. You may call (202) 452-3207, beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before this meeting, for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting.

    Dated: September 3, 1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-23701 Filed 9-3-97; 12:33 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
**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 Gaming  (the "Company"),  hereby certify, based on  my  knowledge,  that  the Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-QSB of the Company  for  the  quarter ended  June 30, 2006 (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 :August 14, 2006

/s/Robert Klien 

Robert Klien

President/Director
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: _____2013_____-NM-____165______-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-96192) pertaining to the registration of 2,526,025 shares of common
stock of VideoServer, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-28209) pertaining to the registration of 223,881 shares of common stock of
VideoServer, Inc., the Registration statement (Form S-8 No. 333-85245) pertaining to the VideoServer, Inc. 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 333-44984) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1991 Stock Incentive Plan and the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of
Ezenia! Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-66628) pertaining to the registration of 400,000 shares of common stock of Ezenia! Inc.
and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-75824) pertaining to the 2001 Stock Incentive Plan, of our report dated March 19, 2004 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Ezenia! Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.



Boston,
Massachusetts
March 29, 2004

---

QuickLinks