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 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 (0.04 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### Rochester Community Savings Bank, Respondent-Appellant, v Fred C. Smith, Jr., Appellant-Respondent.

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s cross motion seeking dismissal of the complaint. Defendant consented to submit to the personal jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York in the "individual guarantee agreement” which he executed on April 5, 1985 *(see, National Equip. Rental v Szukhent,*375 US 311; *Shepherd Showcase v Pekala,*138 AD2d 960). Contrary to defendant’s assertions, the guaranty *1019was not superseded or discharged by the guaranty that he executed on April 24, 1985. Since the April 5, 1985 guaranty is effective, General Obligations Law § 5-1402 precludes dismissal of the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.

Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and, accordingly, we modify the order and grant plaintiff’s motion. The unconditional guaranty executed by defendant on April 5, 1985, is an instrument for the payment of money only within the meaning of CPLR 3213 *(see, North Cent. Pa. Regional Planning & Dev. Commn. v Woodworth,*154 AD2d 913; *European Am. Bank & Trust Co. v Schirripa,*108 AD2d 684). Plaintiff met its burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law by the submission of the Individual Guarantee Agreement, the promissory note, and the affidavit of nonpayment *(see, European Am. Bank & Trust Co. v Schirripa, supra,*at 684; *Kornfeld v NRX Technologies,*93 AD2d 772, *affd*62 NY2d 686). Defendant did not challenge the proffered documentary evidence. Defendant’s averments lacked evidentiary support in admissible form and were insufficient to create a triable issue of fact or to constitute a defense that would defeat plaintiff’s motion *(see, Chase Lincoln First Bank v Mark Homes,*170 AD2d 995; *Marine Midland Bank v Idar Gem Distribs.,*133 AD2d 525, 526; *European Am. Bank & Trust Co. v Schirripa, supra,*at 685). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, J. P., Green, Balio, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

SEEC, Inc.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-39663, No. 333-39667, No. 333-62149, and No.
333-54366) of our audit report dated May 23, 2002, relating to the financial
statements of SEEC, Inc. appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended March 31, 2002.

                                                  BDO SEIDMAN LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
June 13, 2002
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ignacio Ojeda, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter McQuillan, J.), rendered on November 17, 1987, convicting defendant upon a plea of guilty of kidnapping in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 6 years to run consecutively to a previously imposed term of 5 to 15 years, 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., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
<SEQUENCE>2
[DESCRIPTION]TRUST DATA



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99


                            Supplementary Trust Data


l.  The total amount of cash distributed to
      Certificateholders in l998, per $l,000
      of Certificates...................................................$108.34


2.  The total amount of the distribution set
      forth in paragraph l which represents
      principal payments on the Certificates ............................$47.71


3.  The amount of outstanding balances in the
      Accounts which were 30 or more days
      delinquent as of the end of the
      December l998 Monthly Period .............................$451,240,299.21


4.  The total amount of the Monthly
      Servicing Fee paid to the Servicer
      by the Trust in l998......................................$157,789,004.15

                                          38
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         891,527
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,407
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               894,934
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 894,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,337
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     277,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   894,934
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               228,831
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,464
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                189,367
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            189,367
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   189,367
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1,893.67<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1,893.67<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS is per 1% Beneficiary Interest
</FN>
        

</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 (0.28 MB)

Tags:SAAPM, dla, Air Force MSgt Maggie Ladd, Army Capt. Miracle Garcia, SAPM, Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, SAPR, Defense Logistics Agency

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                        (81,000)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,561,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,495,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,661,000
<PP&E>                                       7,388,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,731,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,083,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,226,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,856,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,083,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,808,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,408,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             674,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,274,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (432,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,842,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,842,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.81)



</TABLE>
[Cite as Doleh v. Sutula , 2012-Ohio-6143.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98971



## DOLEH DOLEH

RELATOR

vs.


## HONORABLE JOHN D. SUTULA

RESPONDENT



### JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus and Procedendo Motion No. 459500

Order No. 460799

RELEASE DATE: December 21, 2012FOR RELATOR

Doleh Doleh Inmate No. 631-152 Lake Erie Correctional Institution P.O. Box 8000 Conneaut, Ohio 44030

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center - 8 th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J.:

{¶1} On September 20, 2012, the relator, Doleh Doleh, commenced this mandamus

and/or procedendo action to compel the respondent, Judge John D. Sutula, to rule on the

postconviction relief petition, which on December 10, 2010, Doleh filed in the underlying

case, State v. Doleh, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-531323. On October 18, 2012, the

respondent moved for summary judgment, inter alia, on the grounds of mootness.

Attached to the dispositive motion was a copy of a signed and file-stamped October 17,

2012 journal entry containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law denying Doleh’s

petition. Doleh never filed a response to the judge’s motion for summary judgment.

Thus, the journal entry establishes that the judge has fulfilled his duty to issue findings of

fact and conclusions of law and rule on the petition. Doleh has received his requested

relief, a resolution of his postconviction relief petition. This matter is moot.

{¶2} Although Doleh filed a poverty affidavit, he did not comply with R.C.

2969.25(C), which requires that an inmate file a certified statement from his prison cashier

setting forth the balance in his private account for each of the preceding six months. This

is sufficient reason to deny the mandamus, deny indigency status, and assess costs against

the relator. State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier , 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, 844

N.E.2d 842; and Hazel v. Knab , 120 Ohio St.2d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 378.

{¶3} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent’s motion fo r summary judgm ent,

and denies Doleh’s application for an extraordinary writ. Relator to pay costs. Thecourt directs the clerk to serve upon the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry

upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).

__________________________________________ KENNETH A. ROCCO, PRESIDING JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
#### Ira D. LUSTGARDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Walter KAUTZKY, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections; and Duane Woodard, Attorney General for the State of Colorado, Respondents-Appellees. Dennis Reed GRENEMYER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank GUNTER, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 90SA500, 91SA25.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

May 20, 1991.

Rehearing in 91SA25 Denied June 3, 1991.

Ira David Lustgarden, Canon City, pro se.

Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Raymond T. Slaughter, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Paul Farley, Deputy Atty. Gen., John August Lizza, *1099First Asst. Atty. Gen., Paul S. Sanzo, Asst. Atty. Gen., Human Resources Section, Denver, for respondents-appellees.

Dennis R. Grenemyer, Canon City, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

The two cases before us are *pro se*appeals brought by inmates whose separate petitions for writs of habeas corpus were denied by the Fremont County District Court. Both inmates are serving sentences for convictions of sexual offenses as defined in section 16-13-202(5), 8A C.R.S. (1986). The crimes in question were committed after July 1, 1979 but before July 1, 1985. Both are eligible for parole but the Parole Board has declined to place them on parole. Each petitioned for habeas corpus relief on the ground that he was entitled to mandatory parole because of his accumulated good time credits.

Under section 17-2-201(5)(a), 8A C.R.S. (1986), parole for these inmates is discretionary not mandatory. *See Aue v. Diesslin,*798 P.2d 436 (Colo.1990), and *Thiret v. Kautzky,*792 P.2d 801 (Colo.1990). *See also Campbell v. Solano,*807 P.2d 583 (Colo.1991) *{per curiam).*

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders denying both inmates’ petitions for writs of habeas corpus.

VOLLACK, J., does not participate in No. 90SA500.
Exhibit 32.1 - SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350
Certifications



I am the Principal Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer of Accend Media, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”). I am delivering this certificate
in connection with the Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter year ended November 30, 2011 and filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (“Form 10-Q/A”).



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Accend Media (the “Company”)
certifies to his knowledge that:

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2011 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 that Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.                                                           





|/s/   Scott Gerardi                                            
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|Scott Gerardi                                                  
|Principal Executive Officer
        Principal Financial Officer
|                                                               
|February 8, 2012                                               
|Date
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen De Conto, Appellant.

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), both rendered June 7, 1983, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree under Indictment No. 80-00309-03 and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 80-00311-01, upon jury verdicts, and imposing *685sentences. The appeals bring up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion under Indictment No. 80-00309-03 which was to suppress certain physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgments are reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established.

After the prosecutor indicated to the court that he had completed his peremptory challenges, and while defense counsel was exercising his peremptory challenges, the court permitted the prosecutor to exercise another peremptory challenge. This constituted reversible error *(see,*CPL 270.15 [2]; *People v McQuade,*110 NY 284; *People v Williams,*26 NY2d 62, 63-64; *People v Walker,*168 AD2d 470; *People v McBride,*51 AD2d 554, 555).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.
d1453870_ex4-46.htm


Exhibit 4.46


 


 





 


 


 


25 June 2013



 


 


Drillships Holdings Inc.


Trust Company Complex


Ajeltake Road


Ajeltake Island


Majuro


Marshall Islands MH96960


 


Dear Sirs and Madams


 


RE: SENIOR SECURED LOAN CREDIT FACILITY AGREEMENT - WAIVER LETTER


 


Reference is made to the facility agreement dated 15 April 2011 (the "Loan Agreement") and entered into, inter alia, yourselves as borrower, Nordea Bank Finland Plc, London Branch as agent and the banks and financial institutions listed therein as lenders (including ourselves) (the "Lenders"), pursuant to which the Lenders have agreed to make available a facility of up to USD 800,000,000, subject to the terms and conditions set out therein. Expressions used in this letter shall bear the same meaning as set out in the Loan Agreement unless the context otherwise requires.


 


Reference is further made to your request that the 10 Business Day notice period referred to in clause 7.1 of the Loan Agreement be reduced to a 5 Business Day notice period.


 


We hereby confirm that, in accordance with clause 35.3.1 of the Loan Agreement, the Required Lenders have consented to your request.


 


This letter shall form an integral part of the Loan Agreement and shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, Norwegian law. Clause 36 of the Loan Agreement shall apply to this letter.


 


Yours faithfully,


 


NORDEA BANK FINLAND PLC, London Branch, as Agent


(as per the authority set out in clause 35.3.1 of the Loan Agreement)


 







 








	
/s/ Ronny Bjørnådal

	  	
/s/ Erik Venold


	
Ronny Bjørnådal

	  	
Erik Venold


	
Head of Syndicated Loans

	  	
First Vice President