alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.54 MB)

Tags:DLA Distribution, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, DLA Distribution Susquehanna, dla, Defense Logistics Agency

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Exhibit No. 32.1


SMSA Kerrville Acquisition Corp.


File No. 000-54275


Form 10-Q


Quarter ended June 30, 2011








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 SMSA Kerrville Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin B. Halter, Jr., Chief Executive and Chief Financial 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:





(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: August 8, 2011
By:
/s/ Kevin B. Halter, Jr.Kevin B. Halter, Jr.Chief Executive Officer,and Chief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SMSA Kerrville Acquisition Corp. and will be retained by SMSA Kerrville Acquisition Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

            STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                         1996
                                                                                                      -----------

<S>                                                                                                   <C>
Net loss...........................................................................................   $(3,087,478)
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding:
     Weighted average number of common shares outstanding..........................................     8,535,080
     Common shares issuable upon conversion of Series A Preferred Stock............................     4,377,178
     Incremental common shares outstanding from the exercise of stock options granted within one
      year of the initial public offering and the conversion of Series B Preferred Stock...........       249,029
                                                                                                      -----------
                                                                                                       13,161,287
                                                                                                      -----------
                                                                                                      -----------
Net loss per common share..........................................................................        $(.23)
                                                                                                           ------
                                                                                                           ------
</TABLE>
Todays date

From: Name of Candidate, SSN

To Whom It May Concern:

1. My name is ______________ and this letter is to describe the circumstances

around my relationship and subsequent marriage to the former _____________ who 

is currently an _________ citizen.

2. I have known ________ since ___________ when I was deployed to _____. At that 

time she was working at a restaurant that was frequented by members of the base and 

we struck up a friendship for the period I was there from August 2000 until December 

2000. We stayed in contact via periodic telephone calls and emails after I returned 

home from my deployment.

3. During the summer of 2001 I was on vacation in ____ and visited ______ while

she still lived in ______.

4. I moved to _________ in May 2002 and shortly thereafter I invited ______ to stay

with me and find work in _______. During this time we decided that we would get 

married and she stayed with me during my 2 year assignment at the end of which we 

were married. The date of marriage was __________.

5. I have met several of her relatives ____ . The relatives I have met would stop by 

when we visited her parents in _______. We have a close relationship with her 

parents and visit them as often as possible. My in-laws are ____active politically and 

have not shown any interest in my job activities. Following are all of _____ first

degree relatives

a. Mother-in-Law: 

 Address: 

 Birth Date / Location: 

 Occupation: 

b. Father-in-Law:

 Address: 

 Birth Date / Location: 

 Occupation and Address: 

c. Sister: 

 Address: 

 Birth Date / Location: 

 Occupation and Address:
d. ETC...

6. Concerning my feelings of affection/obligation toward my in-laws: I have a close

relationship with my in-laws and would try to provide for them financially if they needed 

my help. However, there is no situation in which my relationship with them, or anyone 

else, could cause me to compromise my government, country or information with which I 

have been entrusted. I am known as a cold and logical person and would not put anything 

above the trust which has been placed in me. I would contact my special security officer 

if any attempt was made to use family members to gather information from me or 

compromise U.S. security.

7. None of my spouse's immediate family members are involved in any political activities 

in their native land. As far as we know there are no family members associated with or 

employed by foreign governments.

8. I realize that marriage to a foreign national may affect future assignments, security 

clearance and access.

Your name

Signature, date
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Dupree, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), imposed January 2, 1990.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Kooper, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Abdullah Mu-Min, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a conviction, following a bench trial, of criminal mischief in the third degree for intentionally causing damage to property in an isolation cell at the Cattaraugus County Jail. We conclude that the evidence, although circumstantial, was sufficient to establish that defendant intentionally caused the damage *(see, People v Dowd,*115 AD2d 557, *lv denied*67 NY2d 761). Although defendant testified and denied that he intentionally damaged the cell, this merely raised an issue of credibility which the court, sitting as trier of the facts, could properly resolve in favor of the People. In addition, the testimony of the Supervisor of Buildings and Grounds for Cattaraugus County that the cost of the repairs was $600 was sufficient to establish that the value of the damaged property exceeded $250 *(see, People v Woodard,*148 AD2d 997, *lv denied*74 NY2d 749). Thus, the evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for criminal mischief in the third degree and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant access to his jail records. Although defendant’s confidential disciplinary records might be discoverable upon a proper showing *(cf., People v Gissendanner,*48 NY2d 543, 548), defendant failed to make a specific factual showing that such documents contained any information which was relevant and material to his defense. Moreover, defense counsel never requested the court to examine the records in camera to determine whether they contained anything of an exculpatory or evidentiary nature.

The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence of two to four years, to be served consecutively to any sentence defendant was then serving. (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Kelly, J.—Criminal Mischief, 3rd Degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) The Boeing Company ) ASBCA No. 58915 ) Under Contract No. N00024-98-C-5362 et al. ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Andrew E. Shipley, Esq. Seth H. Locke, Esq.

Perkins Coie Washington, DC APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Carol L. Matsunaga, Esq.

Senior Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Carson, CA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 3 February 2016
/MARKN. STEMPLER Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58915, Appeal ofThe Boeing Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
CHAPTER 11. LIFE-CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................ 11-1

11.2 GENERAL APPROACH

.................................................................................................. 11-1

11-iCHAPTER 11. LIFE-CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

The life-cycle cost (LCC) subgroup analysis evaluates impacts on any identifiable groups or customers who may be disproportionately affect ed by any national energy efficiency standard level. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will conduct this analysis as one of the analyses for the notice of proposed rulemaking. DOE will accomplish this, in part, by analyzing the LCC and payback periods (PBPs) for those customers that fall into identifiable affected groups. DOE plans to evaluate variations in regional energy prices and variations in energy use that might affect the net present value of a standard to customer subpopulations. To the extent possible, DOE will obtain estimates of each input pa rameter’s variability and will cons ider this variability in its calculation of customer impacts. DOE plans to perform sensitivity analyses to consider how differences in energy use will a ffect subgroups of customers.

DOE will determine the impact on customer subgroups using the LCC spreadsheet model, which allows for different data inputs. The standard life-cycle cost and payback period analysis (described in the preliminary Technical Support Document (TSD) chapter 8) focuses on all business and institutional users of walk-in equipment. DOE can use the LCC spreadsheet model to analyze the LCC for any subgroup by sampling only that subgroup. Model inputs used by the Department to determine LCC and PBPs ar e described in detail in the life-cycle cost and payback period analysis (see preliminary TSD chapter 8).

In the case of walk-ins, some possible busin ess subgroups include businesses in colder regions, low-margin businesse s, and small businesses.

11.2 GENERAL APPROACH

For the walk-ins LCC subgroup analysis, DOE will estimate LCC savings and PBPs for consumers in the commercial and industrial sectors at the regional level.

DOE will use the LCC spreadsheet model to evaluate impacts on consumer subgroups, especially small-business consum ers. DOE can analyze the LCC for any subgroup by applying the LCC spreadsheet model to only that subgroup within individual regions. DOE is particularly sensitive to increases in the consumer price of the considered products, wishing to avoid a negative economic impact on any identified cons umer subgroup with limited capacity to absorb price increases. The impacts on subgroups will be compared to impacts on the overall population.

In the LCC subgroup analysis, DOE will exa mine a variety of consumer sub-populations. This analysis will determine whether any par ticular group of consumers would be adversely

affected.

11-1
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019 (the "Report") of Garrison Capital Inc. (the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Tansey, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ Joseph Tansey       |
|-------------------------|
| Joseph Tansey           |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| August 9, 2019          |
Exhibit 10.2.1


  


January 31, 2014


 


Hojabr Alimi


[Address]


 


Dear Hoji:


 


This letter references
and incorporates by such reference in its entirety the terms of your March 21, 2013 employment agreement with Ruthigen, Inc., Oculus’
currently wholly owned Delaware subsidiary, as filed with the SEC as an exhibit to the Ruthigen Form S-1 (the “Employment
Agreement”). Under your leadership as Ruthigen Chairman and CEO, Ruthigen is intended to have an initial public offering
(an “IPO”). Please be advised that this is confirmation that the Special Transaction Committee of Oculus Innovative
Sciences, Inc. (“STC”) has determined as follows with regard to certain of the severance benefits set forth in your
Employment Agreement. If (i) an IPO does not occur , (ii) you cease being employed by Ruthigen because Ruthigen is bankrupt or
otherwise insolvent, and (iii) Ruthigen severance benefits are due to you under the Employment Agreement but Ruthigen lacks the
financial resources to pay same, then Oculus will (x) pay you $385,000 in the manner set forth in the last sentence of Section
5.3(b)(i) of the Employment Agreement (the “Oculus Severance Payment Obligation”); provided that the Oculus Severance
Payment Obligation is expressly subject to the same terms and conditions as apply to Ruthigen’s payment thereof as set forth
in the Employment Agreement. If there is any amendment or modification to the Employment Agreement as filed with the SEC after
the date hereof of which Oculus does not specifically approve in writing, the Oculus Severance Payment Obligation shall immediately
be void and no longer in effect.


 


Please acknowledge
your agreement to the foregoing by signing in the space below for your signature and return same to me no later than January 31,
2014.


 


Sincerely,


  


	/s/ Jim Schutz	 
	Jim Schutz	 
	President and CEO	 
	Oculus Innovative Sciences, Inc.	 


 


I agree to the foregoing.


  


	/s/ Hojabr Alimi	 
	Hojabr Alimi
#### Theodore W. Springer, Respondent, v Colleen Grattan-Arnoff, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to set aside a stipulation dated August 16, 1985, which modified a separation agreement between the parties, on the ground that his assent to the stipulation was not voluntary but the result of undue influence, fraud and overreaching on the part of defendant and another person. Defendant interposed an answer containing several affirmative defenses, deposed plaintiff and thereafter moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion on the ground that an issue of fact existed whether the stipulation "was fair and free from overreaching”. We reverse, grant defendant’s motion and dismiss the complaint.

Defendant demonstrated her entitlement to judgment as a *1085matter of law by the submission of evidentiary proof in admissible form. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, plaintiif agreed to accept $12,500 and a reduction in his child support obligations in consideration for the transfer of his interest in the former marital residence to defendant. Here, it cannot be said that the terms of the stipulation are manifestly unfair or that they would permit an inference of overreaching *(see, Christian v Christian,*42 NY2d 63, 71-73). While the courts will examine carefully the circumstances surrounding the execution of a separation agreement between spouses, plaintiif may not defeat defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment by the tender of conclusory or unsubstantiated allegations that his approval of the stipulation was occasioned by the "pressure” or "badgering” of defendant or another person acting on her behalf *(see, McGahee v Kennedy,*48 NY2d 832, 834). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Doyle, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, J. P., Green, Balio, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Intelligence AgencyCOMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE IN DEFENSE OF THE NATION

Search
Search

Search
                    - Facilities Operating Status
                    - Employee Resources

-  Home		 
-  About    -  FAQs             
  -  Organization      -  Locations             
    -  Missile and Space Intelligence Center             
    -  Joint Military Attache School             
    -  Joint Military Intelligence Training Center 
  -  Office of the Inspector General             
  -  Equal Opportunity & Diversity             
  -  Military Integration Office             
  -  History      -  DIA Museum             
    -  George Washington Letters             
    -  Directors of DIA             
    -  The Historians 
  -  Patriots Memorial             
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response             
  -  Contact Us 
-  News & Features    -  Articles             
  -  Videos             
  -  DIA in the News             
  -  Threat Reports             
  -  Photo Gallery             
  -  No FEAR             
  -  Podcasts             
  -  DIA Comics 
-  Careers & Opportunities    -  Career Fields      -  Analysis             
    -  Counterintelligence             
    -  Finance & Acquisition             
    -  Human Intelligence             
    -  Human Services             
    -  Information Technology             
    -  Inspector General             
    -  Legal             
    -  Mission Management             
    -  Office Management & Infrastructure             
    -  Science & Technology             
    -  Security 
  -  Search Vacancies             
  -  Apply to DIA             
  -  Hiring Process             
  -  Internships             
  -  Veteran Programs 
-  Business    -  Contractor Personnel Security             
  -  SIA3             
  -  SITE III             
  -  Innovation             
  -  NeedipeDIA             
  -  Office of Small Business Programs             
  -  Small Business FAQs 

HOMENEWS & FEATURES

Search

Search

                            - All Images 
                            - Other 

                            - Upload Date
                            - Photo Date
                            - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.59 MB)

Tags:Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, DoDIIS19

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
1

Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Kelly, Shaheerah

Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:18 PM

To: kwrk@ktnnonline.com; Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: Public Service Announcement

Good Afternoon,

Below is the Public Service Announcement (PSA) that I spoke to you about over the phone. The public comment period

ends for our action on November 20, 2014, so I would greatly appreciate it if the KTNN could read the PSA between now

until November 20 whenever possible.   

I greatly appreciate your assistance. Feel free to contact me about this if you have any questions.

Radio Public Service Announcement 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency invites the community to give 

their comment on an air quality permit for the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production 

Facility near Aneth, Utah. The permit is known as a Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration permit and will require pollution limits on already existing equipment.

An information session will be held from 5:00 PM until 6:00 PM local time, and a 

public hearing will be held from 6:00 PM until 8:00 PM local time on November 

20, 2014 at the Aneth Chapter House in Aneth, Utah. 

Copies of the permit are online at the EPA Region 9’s website, and in several 

Navajo Nation chapter houses and libraries in the region. 

For more information, please contact Shaheerah Kelly at (415) 947-4156 or 

r9airpermits@epa.gov.

Best regards, 

************************************ 

Shaheerah Kelly 

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov