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 (0.51 MB)

Tags:DLA Distribution, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, DLA Distribution Red River, dla, Employee Appreciation Day, Defense Logistics Agency

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 18 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 14
- 00344
- CV NO. 14
- 14
- 003 51
- CV NO. 14
- 14
- 00352
- CV NO. 14
- 14
- 00368
- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF X .I.M., P.M., E.C., D.C., E. C., AND Y.C., CHILD REN

On Appeal from the 312th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 2002
- 50811 , 2011
- 10644, 2012
- 42185, & 2011
- 01184J

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant, Doana Montoya, appeals three final decree s signed April 28, 2014 , terminating her parental rights to X.I.M., P.M., E.C., and D.C. Appellant further appeals a judgment signed April 28, 2014 , appointing the Department of Family and Protective Services managing conservator of E.C. and Y.C. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.2

Appellant ’ s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes that there are no non

- frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
On July 14 , 2014, a copy of the record and counsel’s brief were del ivered to appellant and appellant was notified o f the right to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d at 329

– 30. More than t hirty days have elapsed and as of this date, no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel ’ s brief and agree the appeal is wholl y frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no r eversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprude nce of the state. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan

.
```
       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit





No. 98-2148

                          ENRICO PAONE,

                           Petitioner,

                                v.

      COMMISSIONER, NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                           Respondent.



           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

         [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]



                              Before

                      Selya, Circuit Judge,
                 Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                
                                
                                
     Enrico Paone on brief pro se.
     Philip T. McLaughlin, Attorney General, and Charles T. Putnam,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief for respondent.





May 27, 1999



                                
                                


            Per Curiam.    Having carefully reviewed the summary
 judgment below in light of the record and the arguments on this
 appeal, we agree with the district court's conclusion that the
 New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision was neither contrary to,
 nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal
 law.  See 28 U.S.C. � 2254(d)(1).  We add only that nothing in
 Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992), compels a
 different result on federal habeas review.  Substantially for
 the reasons stated in the district court's well-reasoned
 opinion and order of September 3, 1998, the judgment is
 affirmed.   See Loc. R. 27.1.
```
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Haskell & White LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-108948, No. 333-112043 and No. 333-122026) of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and in the related Prospectus and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-102042, No. 333-82477and No. 333-20777) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, the 1989 Incentive Stock Option, Nonqualified Stock Option and Stock Purchase Plan, the 1989 Special Nonqualified Stock Option and Stock Purchase Plan, and the Executive StockPlan, of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated February 3, 2006, with respect to the financial statements of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for year ended December 31, 2005. 

/s/ HASKELL & WHITE LLP                 

Irvine, California 

March 13, 2006
EX-10.8



 EXHIBIT 10.8 

Description of Non-Employee Director Compensation Program 

Regional Management Corp. (the “Company”) maintains a non-employee director compensation program pursuant to which: 

 

	 	•	 	each non-employee director receives an annual cash retainer of $30,000 payable in quarterly installments ($50,000 in the case of the chairman of the Board of Directors); 


 

	 	•	 	each member of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, and Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee receives an additional annual cash retainer of $10,000 payable in quarterly installments ($20,000 in the case
of the chairman of each committee); 

  

	 	•	 	each member of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, and Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee receives a $1,500 meeting fee for each committee meeting attended; 


 

	 	•	 	each non-employee director receives an annual equity-based award with a value equal to $90,000 ($110,000 in the case of the chairman of the Board of Directors); and 


 

	 	•	 	each member of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, and Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee receives an additional annual equity-based award with a value equal to $10,000 ($20,000 in the case of the
chairman of each committee). 

 The equity-based awards are granted on the fifth business day following the date of the annual
stockholders’ meeting at which directors are elected. The value of each director’s equity-based award is split evenly between nonqualified stock options and restricted stock. The number of shares subject to the nonqualified stock option
award is determined by dividing the value of the award by the fair value per share of common stock on the grant date calculated using the Black-Scholes valuation model. The number of shares subject to the restricted stock award is determined by
dividing the value of the award by the closing price per share of common stock on the grant date. 
 The nonqualified stock options are
fully vested on the grant date and expire ten years following the grant date. The restricted stock award vests and becomes non-forfeitable as to 100% of the underlying shares on the earlier of the first anniversary of the grant date or the date of
the next annual stockholders’ meeting, subject to the director’s continued service from the grant date until the vesting date, or upon the earlier occurrence of the director’s termination of service as a director by reason of death or
disability or upon a change in control of the Company. In the event of the director’s termination of service for any other reason, the director forfeits the restricted stock award immediately. Each equity-based award is subject to the terms and
conditions of the Regional Management Corp. 2015 Long-Term Incentive Plan, a nonqualified stock option agreement, and a restricted stock award agreement, the forms of which were previously approved by the Compensation Committee and the Board of
Directors and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary

The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.

*Docket Number:* DOT-OST-2012-0015.

*Date Filed:* January 27, 2012.

*Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association.

*Subject:*

Mail Vote 696, Resolution 024d, Currency Names, Codes, Rounding Units and Acceptability of Currencies -Denmark, Norway, Sweden (Memo 1657).      ( print page 7656)    

Intended Effective Date: 30 January 2012.

Renee V. Wright,

Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 2012-3240 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1222 (Interference No. 105,602) JONES J. ROBERTSON and ROBERT M. CURRIE, Appellants,

v. JOS TIMMERMANS and JEAN C. RAYMOND, Appellees. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

ON MOTION ORDER Upon consideration of the appellants' unopposed motion for an extension of time, until June 24, 2009, to file their opening brief, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT 

# APR 9 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Date Jan Horbaly Clerk FILED

us. COURT OF APPEALS F THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT OR cc: David Henry Voorhees, Esq. Christian J. Garascia, Esq. s8 APR 0 9 2009

CLERK
## Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District

110(l) Demonstration Overview

For Rule 400 Adopted August 15, 2012

Based upon EPA Region IX’s concern that the December 15, 2004 Rule 400 revision was “backsliding” and

that the District would ne ed to prepare a Section 110(l) demonstration, considerable research on correlating opacity and emissions rates was conducted. This research confirmed that no standard exists for correlating opacity and emission rates. Therefore, communications with EPA R egion IX and EPA Headquarters on the appropriate way to address the 110(l) demonstration were started. These communications did not result in a definitive way to document compliance with the Section 110(l) requirements for an opacity limit in a federal

at tainment area.

To satisfy the Section 110(l) demonstration requirements, the District provided the following information to EPA for review in a February 1, 2012 transmittal letter:

- Modeling Protocol for Moss Landing Power Plant (MLPP) Modernization

- Air Q uality Section from the Application for Certification for the MLPP Modernization

- District Evaluation Report for the MLPP Modernization

- 1 Minute CEM Data for Gas Turbine Startups

- Report of Noncompliance & Correlating CEM Data

The submitted data show that a ll emissions from turbine startups have been accounted for, and have no impact on the ability of the equipment and the District to comply with federal Ambient Air Quality Standards. Please note that the opacity observed during startup at the MLPP facility is a brownish plume which the District and the facility believe to be NO 2 . The submitted CEM data verifies that the NO

x (NO 2 ) emission rate of 320 lbs/startup included in the evaluation and modeling runs overestimates actual emissions,

as the limited CEM data identifies the maximum startup emissions as 167.4 lbs of NO

x .

In addition, the Air Quality Analysis provided with the application for the modernization of the Moss Landing Power demonstrates that the allowance for 40% opacity during gas turbine sta rtup contained in the December 15, 2004 revision of District Rule 400 will have no impact on the federal Ambient Air Quality Standard. Furthermore, it has been more than seven years since the plant modernization and the December 15, 2004 version of Distri ct Rule 400 being in effect. No exceedance of the federal Ambient Air Quality Standard has been recorded to date. Therefore, this Air Quality Analysis and the historical air quality data should provide the basis for approving revised Rule 400 into the SI P under the provisions of Section 110(l).
Exhibit


Exhibit 10.MM








BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY ON 
INCENTIVE COMPENSATION, STOCK OPTIONS 
AND OTHER EQUITY GRANTS UPON THE RESTATEMENT 
OF FINANCIAL RESULTS (CLAWBACK POLICY) 


The Board of Directors has adopted a formal policy stating that, if an executive engaged in any fraud, misconduct or other bad-faith action that, directly or indirectly, caused or partially caused the need for a material accounting restatement for any periods as to which a performance-based award was paid or credited to the executive during the 12-month period following the first public issuance of the incorrect financial statement, such award shall be subject to reduction, cancellation or reimbursement to the Company at the Board’s discretion. The clawback policy covers any executive who participates in our ESIP or any successor plans. Our incentive compensation plans, stock plans and deferral plans all include the provisions of this policy.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

SCOTT ALAN LOONEY,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PAROLE BOARD,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 326 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of March, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### COUNTY OF ADAMS, State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Todd W. MADILL, Respondent.

No. 90SC15.

Supreme Court of Colorado.

Oct. 15, 1990.

ORDER OF COURT AND MANDATE

IT IS THIS DAY ORDERED that the Petition for Certiorari shall be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of *Bloomer v. Board of County Commissioners,*799 P.2d 942 (Colo.1990).

NOW THEREFORE, this cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in conformance with the judgment of this Court.
i 

,. 

n?lr E-hat atatutc geverns 

the managcrccnt and 

operation of the 

Pabert n. Green 

nospiw, San AntGnio 

P&r r&&t for an opinion on the folloaing 

has been rooclvcd by this offleet 

*First, Does !Waw County fall within &he terns of ArCiClC 443739 (Aots of 

w27, 40th Log., p. 322, ch. 2S9), a 

epl3ci6.l statute .goVCrllin& couutl.es !rnvl.ng a populnt?lon of 2MrOO0 inhzbitnnte 

as s!lozn by the CCUSUS Of 182!0~), OF is it 

&qveruo3 by the general statute, Article 

44~~ (as acxndcd hy Acts I3278 4t)tb Leg*, 

PI 2f& C& If%* SCA IT) 

l Eccc JndAar Lssuc tnin b nt w~ x a r Co llllty 

falls oitiiin t110 ter3s Of the special statute, Article 4437~1, Is the att?tuto rmdcrcd inval’rd In Its a.ppl%catiOz~ to fic?JLp 

C-w mr any of tic followinn, rcnsons: 

1. t;y rciesn GP the fact t33t tkc 

tcrYl ‘census of 19r) ia tco vnqm?, indcfinito nnd unccrtclin azi 3 stmdar? c?, 

c~asrifimtim, fii:icc it :loca xx3 t qwcify 

what ccnsuo is to be usctl as a stant:arc;. 

, 

., 
: . 

‘2, By reason of the fact that, since 

. it is limited to counties having a pcpulation of 23),030 In 1920, thus prccludinfi 

its application to Others subsequently ottainin:: that populction, it contravenes 

the constitutional prohibition against 

local and special lcgislation~ 

.’ 

*Third; Assmine that Dosar County 

S&l originals wlt!lin the t@ms Gf'the 

gcncral statute, Art. 447$, because it 

did uot have a population of 213,000 in 

loa, would it subscqucntly be rcaoved 

from the OpcratiOn Gf Article 4473 a2ld 

phw.xi within the scope of 4437a by 

reason of the fact that its populcbtlon 

l?ter exooeded 213,oOOT' 

In reply to your first question, it is our opinion that BCX3l' COW'lt~; il8ViZl~ G POptiatiGXl in =a Of 

Xt2,03g Inhabitants,: norild fall within the tcms of Articlc 4473-(as zazondcd by Acts 3027, 43th Lcaslature, page 

626, Chapter Iw, Sec. L ) 

The aim and object of construing lc@slation is 

to asocrtain and eilfotice the le~islatlvo intent. 

@The intention of the Le@slaturo In cnactinp: a lati is the law its&f," "the essence of the la+ ar.d 

'the s#rit which @vcs life to the enactrrent.a 33 Tcx. 

dur, 0, 86, Poph3n vs. Patterson, 51 SY (2) RS0; Schlcnier 

980 Board of Trwtccs, KI SP (2) 264; ;lorton Salt Co. vbells, 35 SW (2) 4% 

It is clear, WC thinx, that the Intention nf the 

LQtislaturo was that only counties havin: a po~ulatinn cf 

~10~000 inhabitants in XIX) acre to bc I;ovcrncd by ;?rtiClC 

+a370 (A&s Gf X!27, atth Lc&?i~atllrC, p. 322, chap. 2X?), 

we bCliovC this also ansvcrs your third oucsticrl. 

W fact that a county~s pGpu.laticn r.i#t lstcr escccd 

:D01000 inhabitants wGu$d not bring sxlrl. county CitJiin the 

____..e( ” 
Unfler this opinion, vo do not bolicvo 3t io 

necessary to mm-m- your sccoml question, &I.UC to the 

fact that in any event Eouar Cumty is not govemcd 

by Article 4437~. 

Yqre very truly 

. 

ATTOIWEY GE2iEilAb. OF TEXiW 

/ 

CORt%R 

APPR6VM 1
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Empeiria Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Alan B. Menkes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Dated: July 27, 2011
/s/ Alan B. MenkesAlan B. Menkes

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal executive officer)
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 (0.4 MB)

Tags:dla, subsistence, DLA Troop Support, Defense Logistics Agency, AIR FORCE

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery