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 (0.61 MB)

Tags:Clothing & Textiles, SMALL BUSINESS, DLA Troop Support

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
EXHIBIT 32.1 – CEO Certification











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUNT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Liberated Enegy, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank Pringle, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.








/s/ Frank Pringle
 Name: Frank Pringle
 Title: Chief Executive Officer and
 (Principal Executive Officer)





August 16, 2013





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Liberated Energy, Inc., and will be retained by Liberated Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### People v Eric Fedrick, Defendant.

Motion to extend time to take appeal dismissed. Memorandum: The motion is untimely *(see,*CPL 460.30). Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00438-CR

Roy Edward HODGE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR5364

Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED May 15, 2013.

_____________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        Jurisdiction of Incorporation     Names under Which Subsidiaries Do
Name of Subsidiary                      or Organization                   Business
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>                               <C>
MAPICS Australia Pty. Ltd.              Australia                         MAPICS Australia Pty. Ltd.
MAPICS do Brasil Ltda.                  Brazil                            MAPICS do Brasil Ltda.
3566196 Canada, Inc.                    Canada                            3566196 Canada, Inc.
MAPICS EMEA Support Center B.V.         Netherlands                       MAPICS EMEA Support Center B.V.
MAPICS Sweden AB                        Sweden                            MAPICS Sweden AB
MAPICS Singapore Pte. Ltd.              Singapore                         MAPICS Singapore Pte. Ltd.
MAPICS GmbH                             Germany                           MAPICS GmbH
MAPICS KK                               Japan                             MAPICS KK
MAPICS UK Ltd.                          United Kingdom                    MAPICS UK Ltd.
MAPICS France S.A.R.L.                  France                            MAPICS France S.a.r.l.
MAPICS International Corporation        Barbados                          MAPICS International Corporation
MAPICS, Hong Kong Limited               Hong Kong                         MAPICS, Hong Kong Limited
MAPICS U, Inc.                          Georgia                           MAPICS U, Inc.
Pivotpoint, Inc.                        Massachusetts                     Pivotpoint, Inc.
Minx Software, Inc.                     Massachusetts                     Minx Software, Inc.
Thru Put Corporation                    California                        Thru Put Corporation
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Emanuel Santana, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from three judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.), all rendered September 3, 1987, convicting him of rape in the first degree (three counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (three counts), burglary in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (three counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

*705On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss on the ground that the People were not ready for trial within the statutory time period *(see,*CPL 30.30 [1] [a]). The defendant claims that the court improperly excluded two substantial periods in its computation of time chargeable to the People: (1) October 11, 1985, to March 24, 1986, during which the defendant was detained in the Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Facility on a separate indictment (167 days), and (2) March 25, 1986, until October 16, 1986, during which the defendant was detained in Bellevue Hospital prior to his appearance in the Supreme Court, Queens County (206 days). We disagree.

When a defendant moves to dismiss on the grounds specified in CPL 30.30, the burden of proving that certain time periods should be excluded falls upon the People *(see, People v Santos,*68 NY2d 859, 861; *People v Berkowitz,*50 NY2d 333, 349). Upon our review of the record, we find that the People met their burden of establishing the unavailability of the defendant during the contested periods due to his successive detentions in the Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Facility and Bellevue Hospital. Thus, his presence for trial could not be obtained by due diligence *(see,*CPL 30.30 [4] [c]; *cf., People v Goodman,*41 NY2d 888; *People v Martin,*142 AD2d 737; *People v Pressley,*115 AD2d 228). Accordingly, the trial court properly excluded these periods in its computation of the time chargeable to the People. Since the remainder of time attributable to the People was well within six months of the commencement of the criminal action, the defendant was not entitled to dismissal.

The defendant’s remaining contention similarly lacks merit. There was no impropriety in the trial court’s limitation on the consultations between the defense counsel and his expert medical witness *(see, People v Narayan, 58*NY2d 904; *People v Smith,*111 AD2d 883). Moreover, there was no showing that the defendant was in any way prejudiced by these rulings. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dennis McGraw, Also Known as Larry McGraw, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered September 16, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), kidnapping in the second degree, and burglary in the first degree (two counts), under Indictment Number 60509, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Santagata, J.), rendered October 22, 1986, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, under Indictment Number 56774, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal under Indictment Number 60509 brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain evidence.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), sufficiently established his identity as one of the perpetrators of the crimes. The first victim identified the defendant from a photographic array, and both victims separately identified him at trial as one of the three perpetrators who committed the crimes of which he was convicted. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We further find that the imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment for the separate and distinct crimes committed against each victim was proper *(see, People v Braithwaite,*63 NY2d 839, 842-843; *People v Davis,*169 AD2d 774; *People v Murray,*168 AD2d 572), and that the terms imposed on each count were neither harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those presented in his *pro se*supplemental brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
AAM-11-212-E 

March 23, 2011 

 Exemption No. 9840A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0167 

Ms. Cindy R. Kearns 

Vice President 

Albatross Air, Inc. 

380 Airport Circle 

Beaver, WV 25812 

Dear Ms. Kearns: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 9840. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated February 24, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Albatross Air, Inc. (Albatross Air), for an extension of Exemption No. 9840. 

That exemption from part 121, appendices I and J of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

allows Albatross Air, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. Please note that part 121, appendices I 

and J has been re-designated to part 120. On May 14, 2009, the FAA published the “Drug 

and Alcohol Testing Program” final rule in the Federal Register (74 FR 22649). A copy is 

enclosed for your information. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 
 2

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

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Albatross Air. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9840 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Albatross Air are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

Albatross Air part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9840 to April 30, 2013 unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9840 remain the same. This letter must be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9840. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

         In connection with the quarterly report of Mobile Vault, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A Amendment No. 1 for the period ended February 29, 2012
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Danielle
Olsen, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the
Company.

August 7, 2013                          /s/ Danielle Olsen
                                        ------------------
                                        Danielle Olsen, President, Principal
                                        Executive Officer, Principal Financial
                                        and Accounting officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
14910-I3-Pj

DEPARTMENT OF TR4NSPORTA nON

. ~,' ..

111,.- T. T.

Corrosion or fatigue damage in this area, ifnat detected and corrected,

could lead to degradation of the structural integrity ofrhc wing.

During the removal of the wing removable leading edge on a SAe 146

aircraft for a repair (not related to the subject addressed by this AD),

corrosion was found on the wing fixed leading edge structure. The

investigation determined that the existing scheduled environmental and

fatigue inspections would not have detected the corrosion or fatigue

damage.

originated by an aviation authority of another country to identi fy and correct an unsafe

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Trans po nation

RlN 2120-AA64

Federal Aviation Administration

Av[O l46-R.l70A, I46-RJ85A, and I46-RJ IOOAAirplanes

Airworthiness Di."cctives; BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and "OIIT'NiW'''ElOL

("Docket No. FAA-2009-1254; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-040-AD; Amendmel

Lc,,'" "I)... 'D-/3

39- **Y*j AD 2010-**-**]

(DOT).

14 CFR ParI 39

ACTION: Final rule.

n

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products list !.fIr"!!,,

unfJjYMIlOL

above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness infom1ation (MeAl) }I\..- Ii

* * * * * • •
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,567
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,831
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,552
<INVENTORY>                                     25,135
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,150
<PP&E>                                          23,376
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,076
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 161,133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,677
<BONDS>                                         24,734
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,126
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   161,133
<SALES>                                         58,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,589
<CGS>                                           27,453
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,453
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    63
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,535
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,425
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,110
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,110
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        

</TABLE>
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 18 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That the Architect of the Capitol is author3 ized and directed to transfer the catafalque which is situ4 ated in the Exhibition Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center 

5 to the Senate Chamber so that such catafalque may be 

6 used in connection with services to be conducted there for 

7 the Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg, late a Senator from 

8 the State of New Jersey. 

Passed the Senate June 4, 2013. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 18 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the use of the catafalque situated in 

ator from the State of New Jersey. the Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg, late a Senducted in the United States Senate Chamber for in connection with memorial services to be conthe Exhibition Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 7565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3408]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

DATE AND TIME: Saturday, February 11, 2012, 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. EDT.

PLACE: Telephonic Meeting.

SUBJECT: Notice of Special Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors.
SUMMARY: The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will 
meet in a special session to consider the issue of Board leadership 
following the recent departure of the Board Chairman. The BBG will be 
meeting at the time listed above. At the meeting, which will be 
conducted telephonically, the BBG will consider the conduct of Board 
operations in the absence of a Chair. Due to the meeting's short 
notice, the Agency is unable to make it available for public 
observation via live streaming webcast. However, a complete audio 
recording and a verbatim transcript of the meeting will promptly be 
made available for public observation on the BBG's public Web site at 
www.bbg.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-3408 Filed 2-9-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
2023 Report to the US Congress on Activities

DFC’s Independent Accountability Mechanism

(IAM)/Office of Accountability (OOA)

Message from the Director

The Office of Accountability typically does not receive more than one or two eligible complaints

and this past year we did not receive any. 

The OOA’s main activity centered around the development the “Operational Guidelines 

Handbook for Problem-Solving and Compliance Review Services.” I have announced my 

retirement to DFC and the Board has concluded its interview process for my successor. When 

that person is brought on board, I anticipate they will conclude the process of drafting the 

Guidelines and circulate them to the Board and the public for comment before they are finalized. 

The Office has also established a working relationship with DFC’s Office of the Inspector

General and begun referring ineligible complaints to the OOA involving procurement, contractual 

or purely commercial issues to the IG Office. We are also working with the IG Office to set up 

joint reporting to DFC’s Board of Directors and hope to begin that process with my successor.

Highlights

Case Management

The OOA did not receive any submissions regarding problem-solving or compliance review in 

the last year. 

I took an extended leave of absence for family reasons during 2023. During that time my office 

was overseen by the Chief Development Officer. They conducted two listening sessions during 

that time with NGOs interested in the OOAs work and responded to the questions. 

Resources

The OOA/IAM’s expenses are included in the overall budget for the Office of the Chief 

Executive. The Director is authorized to hire consultants and incur other expenses as needed for 

both case- specific and other functions. No such funds were utilized in 2023. 

William Kennedy

Director, Office of Accountability
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

In the Matter of 

MELISSA B. JACOBY 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT 

FROM INACTIVE STATUS 

PER CURIAM 

: No. 33 DB 2017 (No. 30 RST 2017) 

: Attorney Registration No. 75486 

: (Out of State) 

ORDER 

AND NOW, this 8th day of May, 2017, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated April 27, 2017, is approved and it is ORDERED that 

Melissa B. Jacoby, who has been on Inactive Status, has never been suspended or 

disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, competency and 

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, 

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The 

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall 

be paid by the Petitioner.