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 (0.36 MB)

Tags:Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark McLeod, Rocky Mountain/West Coast/Offshore, DLA Energy 

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
SCPW-14-0001049

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

MICKEY A. MADDOX, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CAAP-14-0001108; CAAP-14-0001109; S.P.P. NO. 13-10004(3);

CR. NOS. 07-1-0139 and 09-1-0284)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Petitioner Mickey A. Maddox’s 

“Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Immediate Release of

Prisoner),” filed on August 11, 2014, the documents attached

thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it

appears that Petitioner currently seeks relief in the

Intermediate Court of Appeals in appeals that were consolidated

under CAAP-14-0001108 and Petitioner presents no special reason

for invoking the supreme court’s original jurisdiction. See Oili

v. Chang, 57 Haw. 411, 412, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for writ of

habeas corpus is denied.

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-14-0001049

02-FEB-2015

12:26 PM
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that all motions pending

in this original proceeding are dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 2, 2015. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
#### The Honorable Melinda MONNET, District Judge, Seventh Judicial District, State of Oklahoma, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Leamon FREEMAN, Presiding Judge, Seventh Judicial District, State of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. 78274.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 4, 1991.

*1062ORDER OF CLARIFICATION

Respondent, Presiding Administrative Judge, attempted to invoke the Art. 7, § 6, Okla. Const., administrative authority of this Court by letter of September 13, 1991, addressed to the Chief Justice. Thereafter, on September 16, 1991, Petitioner, District Judge, invoked the Art. 7, § 4, Okla. Const., judicial power of this Court by filing an action at law, Case No. 78,274, formally requesting this Court, in its judicial capacity, to assume original jurisdiction and issue a Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus to Respondent. The issue presented to this Court in its Art. 7, § 6 administrative capacity was unresolved at the time Petitioner commenced Case No. 78,274.

On September 19, 1991, this Court issued its order in Case No. 78,274 refusing to assume original jurisdiction, the effect of which was to refuse the Petitioner’s prayer for prohibition and mandamus.

Petitioner then filed an “Application to Clarify” the September 19 order, which application Petitioner attempted to withdraw without Leave of Court. Respondent then requested this Court clarify its order of September 19.

By way of clarification: this Court considered and denied Petitioner’s application to assume original jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus in this Court’s Art. 7, § 4 judicial capacity. There is no other manner in which an application to assume original jurisdiction may be addressed. Because the issues raised and relief sought in the administrative matter were essentially the same as those raised in Case No. 78,274, the Court’s decision in Case No. 78,274 had the additional and incidental effect of also resolving that administrative matter presented to the Court through the Chief Justice. Therefore, both the § 4 and § 6 matters were mentioned in the order of September 19, 1991.

OPALA, C.J., HODGES, Y.C.J., and SIMMS, HARGRAVE, ALMA WILSON, JJ., concur.

KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., concur in denial of judicial relief.

SUMMERS, Justice,

with whom KAUGER, Justice, joins, concurring in denial of judicial relief.

The substance of my previous vote remains as before. I would assume original jurisdiction on the Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus and deny the judicial relief sought therein. *Graham v. Cannon,*574 P.2d 305, 309 (Okl.1978).

I have not participated earlier and remain a non-participant today in any action on any party’s request for administrative review or relief.

I do not participate in any effort to clarify the earlier Order of the Court's majority-
----

(2004/C 314/65)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 300, 4.12.2004

Past publications

OJ C 273, 6.11.2004

OJ C 262, 23.10.2004

OJ C 251, 9.10.2004

OJ C 239, 25.9.2004

OJ C 228, 11.9.2004

OJ C 217, 28.8.2004

These texts are available on:

----
DOW CONFIDENTIAL - Do not share without permission 

Results of Air Monitoring for MDI vapors at Larkin Lab During Froth Pak Wall 

Spray Operation, Aug 4, 2010 

TION CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

40-CFR2.203(b)
Board of Directors Meeting 

Tuesday, March 9, 2021 

This event is closed to the public 

An information summary for the below listed project can be found on dfc.gov 

Meeting Agenda 

 

I. CHAIRMAN OPENS MEETING 

II. MANAGEMENT REPORT 

III. PROJECT APPROVAL 

a. Banco BTG Pactual S.A. (Brazil) 

 Structured Finance 

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS 

a. Risk Committee Nomination

b. Minutes – December 10, 2020 DFC Board of Directors Meeting 

c. Minutes – January 12, 2021 DFC Board of Directors Meeting 

V. REPORTS 

a. Office of Inspector General - Update 

 Anthony Zakel, Inspector General 

Location: Meeting will be held via videoconference
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4122 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H.R. 4122

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To temporarily extend certain provisions of the Marine Mammal 
                            Protection Act.
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H.R. 4122

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To temporarily extend certain provisions of the Marine Mammal 
                            Protection Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 114(a)(1) 
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1383a(a)(1)), is 
amended by striking ``April 1, 1994,'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
``May 1, 1994,''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 24, 1994.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 32




<PAGE>


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Americann,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period  ending March 31, 2015 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  Timothy Keogh, the Company's Principal
Executive  Officer and Benjamin  Barton the  Company's  Principal  Financial and
Accounting  Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of
their knowledge:

     (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 the Company.


June 15, 2015                           /s/ Timothy Keogh
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Timothy Keogh, Principal Executive
                                        Officer


June 15, 2015                           /s/ Benjamin Barton
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Benjamin Barton, Principal Financial
                                        and Accounting Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramon Hungria-Martinez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered on November 28, 1989, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of five years to life, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Robert Gamble, Respondent, v Salvatore Romano, as Warden of the Suffolk County Correctional Center, Appellant.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated January 16, 1991, which sustained the writ to the extent of reducing bail to the sum of $10,000 bond or $2,000 cash.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is dismissed.

In this habeas corpus proceeding, Robert Gamble is seeking a reduction in the amount of bail fixed by the County Court at the time of his arraignment on an indictment which charges him with, among other crimes, rape in the first degree and burglary in the first degree. We find that the Supreme Court, in entertaining this collateral proceeding, committed error as a matter of law when it expanded the scope of its review beyond the confines of the record made in the County Court at the time of Mr. Gamble’s arraignment *(see, People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson,*48 NY2d 230, 232-233; *People ex rel. Klein v Krueger, 25*NY2d 497). Furthermore, considering all of the factors in this case, including Mr. Gamble’s criminal history, warrant history, his threats against the victim of the rape, and the absence of any substantial community ties, it is beyond question that the amount of bail set by the arraignment court did not exceed constitutional or statutory standards, and the habeas corpus court erred in substituting its discretion for that of the arraignment court *(see, People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson, supra; People ex rel. Parone v Phimister,*29 NY2d 580; *see also, People ex rel. Morales v Warden,*166 AD2d 626; *People ex rel. Meyer v Warden of House of Detention for Men,*154 AD2d 413). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Hooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.
### MACT Floor Calculation Details for Primary Aluminum Supplemental Proposal

The attachments to this file contain the calculations supporting the development of MACT standards for the primary aluminum reduction supplemental proposal, as described in the
memo: Revised Draft MACT Floor Determination for the Primary Aluminum Reduction Industry

– Supplemental Proposal . File names are given in the following table.

### Summary of UPL Calculation Sheets in **MACT Floor Calculation Details for Primary Aluminum Supplemental Proposal**

**Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) Standards Category**  **Source**

**Type Subcategory**  **Distribution MACT Limit (99%**  **UPL) File Name** 
**Existing Source Standards** Potline Prebake CWPB1 Normal 1.1 lb/ton Al 01_UPL_POM_Existing_Potlines_CWPB1.xlsx Potline Prebake CWPB2 Normal 12 lb/ton Al 02_UPL_POM_Existing_Potlines_CWPB2.xlsx Potline Prebake CWPB3 Normal 2.7 lb/ton Al 03_UPL_POM_Existing_Potlines_CWPB3.xlsx Potline Prebake SWPB Normal 19 lb/ton Al 04_UPL_POM_Existing_Potlines_SWPB.xlsx 

### New**Source Standards** Potline All types N/A Normal 0. 77 lb/ton Al 05_UPL_POM_New _Potlines.xlsx 

### Particulate Matter (surrogate for HAP metals) Standards **Existing Source Standards** Potline Prebake CWPB1 Lognormal 7.2 lb/ton Al 06_UPL_PM_Existing_Potlines_CWPB1.xlsx Potline Prebake CWPB2 Normal 11 lb/ton Al 07_UPL_PM_Existing_Potlines_CWPB2.xlsx Potline Prebake CWPB3 Normal 20 lb/ton Al 08_UPL_PM_Existing_Potlines_CWPB3.xlsx Potline Prebake SWPB Normal 4.6 lb/ton Al 09_UPL_PM_Existing_Potlines_SWPB.xlsx Potline Soderberg

-- Lognormal 26 lb/ton Al 10_UPL_PM_Existing_Potlines_VSS2 .xlsx Anode Bake Furnace N/A N/A Normal 0.068 lb/ton Anode 1 1 _UPL_PM_Existing_Anode_Bake_Furnace .xlsx Paste Plant N/A N/A Lognormal 0.082 lb/ton Anode 12_UPL_PM_Existing_Paste_Plant.xlsx 

### New**Source Standards** Potline All types N/A Normal 4.6 lb/ton Al 13_UPL_PM_New _Potlines.xlsx Anode Bake Furnace N/A N/A Normal 0.036 lb/ton Anode 14_UPL_PM_New _Anode_Bake_Furnace.xlsx Paste Plant N/A N/A Lognormal 0.005 6 lb/ton Anode 15_UPL_PM_New _Paste_Plant.xlsx
MEMORANDUM OPINION 

No. 04-07-00768-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF E.D., et al., 

Children 

 

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2006-PA-00954 

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding 

Opinion by: Rebecca Simmons, Justice 

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice 

 Karen Angelini, Justice 

 Rebecca Simmons, Justice 

Delivered and Filed: January 28, 2009 

AFFIRMED 

This is an appeal concerning the trial court’s termination of Appellants Terrick, Lashonda 

and Alexander’s parental rights to children E.D., T.A. and A.W.1

 Terrick, Lashonda and 

Alexander’s court-appointed appellate attorneys each filed a brief containing a professional 

evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced 

regarding their respective clients. Each counsel concluded that the appeal is without merit 

regarding their client. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

1

 To protect the privacy of the parties in this case, we identify the children by their initials and the children’s 

mother, presumed father and alleged father by their first names only. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) 

(Vernon 2002). 
04-07-00768-CV 

-2- 

(1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of 

parental rights). 

Each appellate counsel provided their respective clients with a copy of their appellate 

brief, and advised their clients of his or her right to examine the record and to file a pro se brief. 

No pro se brief has been filed. After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeals are 

frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed. Furthermore, 

we grant counsels’ motions to withdraw. 

Rebecca Simmons, Justice
|         | 1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               |
|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                       |                                                                                                                                                   |   |
|                                       | 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the company. |

| /s/ Gayle Marshall Johnson                     |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                           |
| Gayle Marshall Johnson                         |
| Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| March 31, 2011                                 |

----
Exhibit 32

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

RE:    Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to its knowledge:



| | (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 Trust.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.



/s/ Michael J. UlrichMichael J. Ulrich Vice
President The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I


November 14, 2011
#### STATE, ex rel., OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Christopher E. SCHLEGEL, Respondent.

OBAD No. 937.

SCBD No. 3617.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Feb. 19, 1991.

ORDER

Upon due consideration of a complaint filed in the above-numbered and entitled cause, which complaint alleges the respondent has engaged in acts which constitute professional misconduct and which merit discipline by this Court, and upon review of the pleadings and record filed herein, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:

Respondent is an attorney, duly licensed to practice law by the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, and is a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association, with his official address at First Floor, The Herriman, 923 North Robinson Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102.

Proceedings have been held in this cause before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal of the Oklahoma Bar Association, according to the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. Ch. 1, App. 1-A (1981). Following said proceedings, complainant and respondent have jointly submitted to this Court their Proposed Stipulations of Fact and Conclusions of Law with Agreed Recommendation for Discipline.

The said stipulations and findings reveal that respondent failed to promptly and zealously conclude a legal matter which was entrusted to him and for which he accepted remuneration, and that his acts constitute violations of the mandatory provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. Ch. 1, App. 3-A (1988), Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 3.2, and 8.4(a). Respondent’s violation of these Rules constitutes grounds for professional discipline.

Both complainant and respondent agree and stipulate that the appropriate discipline under the circumstances should be that of public censure.

*671IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that respondent, Christopher E. Schlegel, be, and he is hereby, publically censured for his violation of the aforesaid Rules of Professional Conduct.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT that respondent pay all costs of these disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $310.44, within thirty days of this Order, and that such payment of costs shall be a condition for respondent’s continued practice of law.

OPALA, C.J., and LAVENDER, DOOLIN, ALMA WILSON and KAUGER, JJ., concur.

HARGRAVE and SUMMERS, JJ., concur in result.

HODGES, V.C.J.,

concurs in part, dissents in part: I would suspend respondent for a period of one year.

SIMMS, J.,

dissents:

I would consolidate this case with SCBD 3682, and would join with

HODGES, V.C.J., in suspending respondent for one year.