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 (0.25 MB)

Tags:DLA Acquisition, Purchasing Agent, Process excellence, columbus, People and Culture

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF: J. D., A CHILD 

UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN 

YEARS. 

J. D., 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

No. 69089 

FILED 

FEB 1 2 2016 

I I E K. L DEM N 

C 9" • Ago . 0 WI 

B A lop 

0H1 'E 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

The parties have filed a stipulation to dismiss this appeal, 

stating that this appeal has been rendered moot by this court's opinion in 

Scott v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 101, P.3d 

(2015). We approve the stipulation and 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

Hardesty 

,J. geku (hp , J. 

Saitta Pickering 

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge 

Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge 

Luke A. Busby 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Carson City District Attorney 

Carson City Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IL9 - oqi-33 

(0) 1947A
#### Mary Christie, Respondent, v John Wanamaker Philadelphia, Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., Doing Business as John Wanamaker & Son, Defendant, and Armor Elevator Company, Inc., Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered December 4, 1990, which, *inter alia,*denied defendant’s motion for a change of venue from Bronx County to Westchester County, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Venue was properly placed in Bronx County based on the residence of plaintiff. *(Coles v LaGuardia Med. Group,*161 AD2d 166.) Defendant Armor Elevator Company relied on the situs of the alleged tort action, the medical offices of plaintiff’s two treating physicians and the residence of a potential witness to support its application for a discretionary change of venue (CPLR 510 [3]).

This Court has repeatedly stated that a motion for a change of venue based on the convenience of material witnesses must be supported by a statement which specifies the witnesses affected, the nature of their testimony, and the inconvenience that the witnesses would sustain if required to testify in the county of original venue. *(Coles v LaGuardia Med. Group, supra,*at 167; *Moghazeh v Valdes-Rodriguez,*151 AD2d 428, 429; *Firoozan v Key Food Supermarket,*151 AD2d 334.) The attorney’s affirmation submitted below was insufficient for this purpose. Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
# s''-ä\'" 

# LYJ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711



## ilAR

# I 5 2007 OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNNG AND STANDABDS 

### Mr, Randy Walser 

## " Plant Manager 

### TXI Operations, L.P. 

### Midlothian Cement Plant 245 Ward Road 

### Midlothian, 

### Texas 76065 

### f)ear 

### Mr. Walser:
As 

### you are aware,the 

### U. S. 

### Environmental Protection 

### Agency (EPA) promulgated amendments 

### to the 

### National Emissions Standards 

### for Hazardous 

### Air Pollutants 

### for the Portland Cement 

### Manufacturing Industry on December 20, 

### 2006. See

## 7l FR 

### 76518. These regulations contained new source standards 

### for mercury based onthe performance 

### of awet scrubber. However, due

### to the uncertainties concerning the level 

### of scrubber performance 

### in controlling mercury, we also atthe same

### time published a notice 

### of reconsideration 

### for this new source mercury 

### standard. See

## 7l FR 76553.
As part 

### of the reconsideration process, 

### EPA has undertaken a program 

### to acquire 

### additional information related 

### to emissions 

### of mercury 

### from cement 

### kilns 

### with wet scrubbers 

### This letter is

### toconfirm that 

### your

### facility has agreed to 

### perform simultaneous mercury testing at the 

### inlet and outlet 

### of your wet 

### scrubber. As part 

### of this 

### effort, we

### will require pretest submission 

### of atesting 

### protocol for EPA 

### approval. EPA

### will promptly review and respond to thedraft 

### protocol(s) as

### they are 

### received. 

### It isalso our understanding that 

### you anticipate subrnitting thetest data

### to EPA by June 30,

### 2007. Therefore, these protocols need

### to be submitted 

### in a

### timely manner 

### for review and approval to 

### allow theJune 

### 30,2007, schedule 

### to be 

### met. Your cooperation 

### in meeting 

### this schedule is appreciated, and

### will avoid the needto require thetesting through more 

### formal means. 

### If any

### of the 

### information inthis letter is incorrect, please 

### notify us

### within ten (10) days 

### from the receipt 

### of this letter.

lntemet Address (URL) o htþ:/Âtmw.epa.gov

Rocyclod/Recyclab¡e

. Prlnted wlth Vegetable Oll Based lnks on Rocyclod Papor (Mlnlmum 25% Postconsumor)Thank 

### you for your assistance 

### in this 

### effort.

Sector Policies and Programs 

### Division



### cc: Näncy Garnett, 

### Environmental Manager, 

### TXI Sincerely,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
Amounts have been restated to reflect revised net income per share amounts
resulting from the implementation of SFAS 128.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                             107
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         313,446
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,029
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 347,795
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        178,470
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           112
<OTHER-SE>                                     130,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   347,795
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,508
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,630
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,955
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,193
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,193
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,193
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55


</TABLE>
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 (0.67 MB)

Tags:DLA Aviation, Process excellence, People and Culture

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### Malcolm Stokes et al., Respondents, v Benjamin McKeithan, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action in October 1983, seeking damages for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident. On November 14, 1983, defendant served an answer, a demand for a bill of particulars, and a notice for discovery and inspection. No action was taken by plaintiffs. On August 15, 1988, defendant served, by certified mail, a 90-day notice. Plaintiffs neither complied with the demand nor moved for an extension of time within which to comply *(see, Carte v Segall,*134 AD2d 397, 398). By notice of motion dated November 6, 1989, defendant moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ action for lack of prosecution. In a responding affirmation, plaintiffs’ attorney stated that he never received the 90-day demand, and further affirmed that on October 4, 1989, plaintiffs had served upon defendant their bill of particulars and further complied with defendant’s demands for discovery and inspection. Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion. We reverse.

To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff who has failed to comply with a 90-day demand must provide a justifiable excuse for the delay and a showing of merit by one who has personal knowledge of the facts *(see, Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp.,*152 AD2d 552, 553; *Fuentes v 2254 Realty Co.,*151 AD2d 355). Here, plaintiffs failed to do either.

Plaintiffs failed to submit an affidavit of merit, and the complaint and the bill of particulars, verified by an attorney with no personal knowledge of the facts, are insufficient to serve this purpose *(see, Duqmaq v Stewart,*137 AD2d 653, *lv denied*71 NY2d 806; *cf., Salch v Paratore,*60 NY2d 851, 853, *rearg denied*61 NY2d 759).

Plaintiffs’ counsel offered no reason for the failure to respond to defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars for almost six years. Although plaintiffs’ attorney stated that he had not received the 90-day demand, defendant demonstrated by affidavit of service that such demand, a copy of which was presented to Supreme Court, was mailed by certified mail to plaintiffs’ attorney’s correct business address on August 15, 1988. Under these circumstances, defendant’s motion to dismiss should have been granted. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Nassau County, Murphy, J.—CPLR 3216.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.9


EARTHLINK HOLDINGS CORP.
Board of Directors Compensation Plan
(Updated as of July 2015)
		
	1.
	Retainers


		
	a.
	Each independent director receives a $95,000 annual retainer.  


		
	b.
	The Chairman of the Board receives an additional $75,000 annual retainer.


		
	c.
	The Audit Committee chair and the Leadership and Compensation Committee chair each receive an additional $25,000 annual retainer.


		
	d.
	The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee chair receives an additional $15,000 annual retainer.


		
	e.
	All retainers are paid annually in advance, following the annual shareholder meeting.


		
	f.
	Each independent director who joins the Board after the Board meeting that coincides with the annual shareholder meeting will receive a prorated annual retainer representing the number of months commencing with the month in which the director is appointed and ending with the month in which the next annual meeting is scheduled.  The prorated annual retainer will be paid upon the director’s appointment.


		
	2.
	Restricted Stock Units


		
	a.
	Independent directors receive a grant of RSUs valued at $140,000 on the first business day immediately following the annual shareholder meeting.∗


		
	b.
	RSUs will vest on the earlier of the first anniversary of the grant date or the date of the next annual shareholder meeting following the grant date, provided the director is serving as an independent director at that time.  Unvested RSUs shall be forfeited if the director leaves the Board prior to such time.


		
	i.
	Note:  Each RSU represents the right to receive one share of EarthLink stock.  Upon vesting, the RSUs will be payable in shares of stock (in which case the recipient has taxable income equal to the value of the shares received on the date of vesting).


		
	c.
	Each independent director who joins the Board after the Board meeting that coincides with the annual shareholder meeting will receive a prorated annual RSU grant representing the number of months commencing with the month in which the director is appointed and ending with the month in which the next annual meeting is scheduled.  The prorated annual grant will be made upon the director’s appointment.  These RSUs will vest on the same date as the vesting date for the applicable annual RSU grant.


		
	3.
	Meeting Expenses


		
	a.
	EarthLink reimburses directors for their expenses incurred in attending Board of Directors and Committee meetings.


		
	4.
	Education Expenses


		
	a.
	EarthLink will pay reasonable program fees and associated travel expenses for each director to participate in one or more additional relevant director education programs.  In selecting director education programs, directors should consider general Board governance and specific Committee focus.
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 Norfolk, dla, AWARDS, People and Culture, Defense Logistics Agency

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Exhibit






Exhibit 10(d)(1)


Schedule of Officers who are Covered by UNS Energy Corporation
Officer Change in Control Agreement  or Substantially Identical Agreements


David G. Hutchens
Kevin P. Larson 
Kentton C. Grant
Susan M. Gray
Todd C. Hixon
Karen G. Kissinger
Mark C. Mansfield
Frank P. Marino
Thomas A. McKenna
Catherine E. Ries
Mary Jo Smith
Mission Planning/Pre-Flight Briefing Checklist:

Review with All Participants As Part of Pre-Flight Briefing

1. Chain of command, individual roles and responsibilities are identified to all participants? Yes No N/A

2. Project Flight Safety Plan reviewed? Yes No N/A

3. Has the emergency evacuation route been discussed? Yes No N/A

4. Are all components in place and operational to track the UAS at all times? Yes No N/A

5. Can terrain, altitude, temperature or weather that could have an adverse effect be mitigated? Yes No N/A

6. Are all aerial hazards identified and known to all participants? Yes No N/A

7. Have ground operations hazards and safety been identified to all participants? Yes No N/A

8. Have mitigating measures been taken to avoid conflicts with military or civilian aircraft? Yes No N/A

9. Have adequate landing areas been identified and or improved to minimum standards? Yes No N/A

10. Are all essential UAS personnel qualified for the mission? Yes No N/A

11. Are there enough (qualified)essential personnel to accomplish the flight safely? Yes No N/A

12. Is the pilot carded and experienced for the mission to be conducted? Yes No N/A

13. Will briefings be conducted prior to flight with all participants? Yes No N/A

14. Is the aircraft capable of performing the flight safely? Yes No N/A

15. Does the UAS have the capability to perform the flight based on predicted weather 

conditions?

Yes No N/A

16. Is the UAS documentation readily accessible at the Ground Station? Yes No N/A

17. Do all personnel have the required PPE? Yes No N/A

18. Remember; maps of areas/sites, handheld radios, cell phones. Yes No N/A

19. Have the proper approvals been given by FAA? Yes No N/A

20. In flying over private/public lands, has notification and permission been obtained from the 

controlling authority prior to launching UAS?

Yes No N/A

23. Other? (identify) Yes No N/A

24. Other? (identify) Yes No N/A

25. Other? (identify) Yes No N/A

Identify Conditions (if any)

PIC Signature: Date: GS Operator/Observer Signature: Date:
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00045

- CR

M ARTINIANO E LIASMARTINEZ

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 372nd District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 1640051D )

March 14, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the t rial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

Justice Wade Birdwell
#### COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. KASPARE COHN COMPANY, Limited (Formerly Rayben, Limited), Respondent. KASPARE COHN, Inc., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 9124.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 16, 1940.

Thomas R. Dempsey, of Los Angeles, Cal., for taxpayers.

Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. U. S. -Atty. Gen., for the Commissioner.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of counsel for respective parties, for dismissal of the petitions to review herein by the clerk pursuant to Rule 16 of the Rules of this Court, petitions to review herein entered dismissed as of February 16, 1940, and certified copies of such stipulation for dismissal issued to counsel and to the clerk of the United States Board of Tax Appeals.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 15, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 15, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24I0243. FIELD OF DREAMS PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, LLC v. JOHNNIE MAE 

WILKERSON.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

STCV2019000381