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 (0.75 MB)

Tags:DLA Distribution, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, DLA Distribution San Joaquin, dla, Marine Birthday, Veterans day, Department of Defense, DoD, Defense Logistics Agency, usmc, MARINE CORPS

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7135

CHARLES J. E. BRYANT, a/k/a Umar Al-Rahiim,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.

(CA-98-2817-4-23AK)

Submitted: February 22, 2000 Decided: April 24, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles J. E. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The magistrate judge and the district court properly

construed Bryant’s motion as one filed under § 2254 rather than 28

U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) as Bryant styled it.

2

PER CURIAM:

Charles J. E. Bryant seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge

and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1999).* We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and the magistrate judge’s report and find

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

court. See Bryant v. State of South Carolina, No. CA-98-2817-4-

23AK (D.S.C. July 27, 1999). We also deny Bryant’s motion to compel production of transcripts. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Lim, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered March 10, 1989, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second *564degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On October 15, 1987, the victim and his girlfriend were walking down the street when a car, whose radio was playing loudly, pulled into a driveway in front of them. The victim sang along with the radio and the driver of the car stepped out and cursed at the victim. After an initial confrontation, the defendant walked into his house, came back out, started fighting with the victim, and shot him. The victim’s girlfriend, who was the only eyewitness, testified that the victim did not struggle or try to put up a fight.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant *(see, People v Martin,*59 NY2d 704, 705), we find no reasonable view of the evidence which would support a finding that the defendant committed manslaughter in the second degree but did not commit murder in the second degree *(see,*CPL 300.50 [1]; *People v Ford,*62 NY2d 275, 281). The defendant’s conduct precluded a reasonable jury from finding that he had acted recklessly and not intentionally *(see,*Penal Law § 125.15 [1]; § 125.25 [1]; *People v Ochoa,*142 AD2d 741; *People v Bell,*111 AD2d 926; *People v Hartley,*103 AD2d 935, *affd*65 NY2d 703). Therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing to charge the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree.

The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that the defendant voluntarily consented to go to the police precinct to be photographed and fingerprinted. The People met the initial burden of showing the legality of the police conduct, and the defendant, by his own testimony, confirmed his voluntary consent *(see, People v Wise,*46 NY2d 321, 329; *People v Gonzalez,*39 NY2d 122, 128-130; *People v Barclift,*140 AD2d 615).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Autry,*75 NY2d 836; *People v Vasquez,*66 NY2d 968, *cert denied*475 US 1109; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023; *People v West,*56 NY2d 662), and we decline to consider them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 96-KP-00003-SCT

JERIMIAH TERRONOVA COLE, JR. a/k/a J. T. COLE,

JR.

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED,

PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-A

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/14/95

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT WALTER BAILEY

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LAUDERDALE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: PRO SE

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: WAYNE SNUGGS

DISTRICT ATTORNEY BILBO MITCHELL

NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - OTHER

DISPOSITION: DISMISSED - 8/7/97

MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

MANDATE ISSUED: 8/29/97

BEFORE PRATHER, P.J., ROBERTS AND MILLS, JJ.

PRATHER, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

The appellant, having previously pled guilty to uttering forgery, petitioned the trial court for

production of the records in his case. The appellant's stated reason for requesting the record was to

prepare his post-conviction relief motion. The trial judge denied the request for records as frivolous,

which gave rise to this appeal. There is no right to an appeal of an independent motion for production

of the record--outside the context of a) a direct appeal on the merits (precluded in this case by the

guilty plea), or b) a proper motion for post-conviction relief. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction. See Fleming v. State, 553 So. 2d 505, 506-8 (Miss. 1989).

DISMISSED.
LEE, C.J., SULLIVAN, P.J., PITTMAN, BANKS, McRAE, ROBERTS, SMITH AND

MILLS, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

 

** **

I, J. Steven Roy,certify that:

### ** **

# **1.**                                       I have reviewed thisannual report on Form l0-K of Movie Gallery, Inc.;

# ** **

# **2.**                                       Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

# ** **

# **3.**                                       Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

# ** **

# **4.**                                       The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)       designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 (b)      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)       disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

# **5.**                                      The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

 

(a)       all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)      any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:   March 11, 2004 |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                  |
|                                  |
| /s/  J. Steven Roy               |   |
| J. Steven Roy                         |
| Chief Financial Officer               |

 

----
EXHIBIT
15.1






























CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








To
the Board of Directors of Reg Technologies Inc.








We
consent to the use of our report dated August 22, 2008 on the consolidated
financial statements of Reg Technologies Inc. as at April 30, 2008 and 2007 that
are included in the Company’s Annual Report Form 20-F/A filing dated March 24,
2009.





In
addition, we consent to the reference to us under the heading “Statement by
Experts” in the Annual Report Form 20-F/A dated March 24, 2009.





Dated
this 24th day of March 2009.





“Smythe
Ratcliffe LLP” (signed)





Chartered
Accountants





7th
      Floor, Marine Building
              355
      Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC
              Canada
      V6C 2G8
            Fax:                604.688.4675
              Telephone:   604.687.1231
              Web:             SmytheRatcliffe.com
<page>					  EXHIBIT 32.02


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report of Morgan Stanley Spectrum
Strategic L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Lee Horwitz, Chief
Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, 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 my 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 operations of the Partnership.








By:	/s/Lee Horwitz

Name:	   Lee Horwitz
Title:	   Chief Financial Officer

Date:	   March 8, 2007
#### Doris Trading Corporation, Respondent, v Melody Knitting Mills, Inc., Appellant.

Order/Judgment (one pa*400per), Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered July 12, 1990, which, *inter alia,*granted the petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross-petition to vacate or modify the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner commenced the arbitration by way of a demand dated February 8, 1988. The record demonstrates a persistent pattern on respondent’s part of delaying hearings in this matter between October 1988 and March 1990, by which time the claims were more than two years old. One or two days before the scheduled hearing date, respondent’s attorney requested an adjournment on the ground of his illness. The request was denied, and was renewed at the beginning of the hearing by another attorney from the law firm representing respondents. Despite the attorney’s knowledge of the prior denial, no documentation supporting the claim of illness was offered. The arbitrators again denied an adjournment, and in the award noted the lack of documentation as the ground for the denial of the request. In these circumstances, Supreme Court properly found respondent had failed to carry its burden to establish misconduct on the arbitrators’ part sufficient to vacate the award *(Matter of Ottley v Mostoff, 19*AD2d 964, *affd*54 NY2d 698). Such a finding of misconduct would require a determination that the arbitrators had abused their discretion *(supra; Matter of Herskovitz [Kaye Assocs.],*170 AD2d 272). Any such conclusion is precluded by the fact that the basis for the requested adjournment was never supported by competent documentation, either before the arbitrator or even in the subsequent judicial proceeding *(see, Matter of A & R Constr. Co. v Gorlin-Okun, Inc.,*41 AD2d 876). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Asch and Smith, 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 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 (0.83 MB)

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

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001002909
<NAME> CHANCELLOR BROADCASTING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,789
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,024
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,127
<PP&E>                                          58,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 690,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,208
<BONDS>                                        260,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          107,222
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           185
<OTHER-SE>                                     200,806
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   690,743
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,402
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  140,732
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    68
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   810
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,897
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,613
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,272)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  4,177
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,449)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.10)
        

</TABLE>
AFS

- 1 5

- 2 88

- E March 1 1, 2015

Exemption No. 11207

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0006

Mr. Aaron A. Goerlich

Counsel for Aerodynamics Incorporat ed , Inc.

Gar o falo, Goerlic h , Hainback PC

1200 New Hampshire Ave nue , NW

., Suite 800

Washington

, DC 20036

- 6802

Dear Mr. Goerlich :

This letter is to inform you that we have d enied your request for exemption. It transmits our

decision, explains its basis, a nd gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption,

including the date it ends

.

The Basis of Our Decision

On December 31, 2014 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf

of Aerodynamics Incorporated , Inc. ( Aerodynamics ), for an e xemption from

§ 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary

to allow Aerodynamics to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew

program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a q ualifying pilot in command (PIC) who

is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg

that includes a takeoff and a landing.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of th e petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aerodynamics

.

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material resp ects to

those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 10430 (copy enclosed), the2

FAA found that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not

provide a level of safety equivalent to the rule.

Having reviewed your re asons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial

of Exemption No. 10430 ;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10430

also ap ply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, which the FAA

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petiti on of Aerodynamics, Incorporated

for an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.434(c)(1)(ii).

Sincerely,

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting D eputy Directo r, Flight Standards Service