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 (1.34 MB)

Tags:dla, TROOP SUPPORT, Back orders, subsistence

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30605 cons/W 09-30934

Summary Calendar

MOTHARAM, INC.

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant-Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CV-4499

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Motharam, Inc. instituted this action against

Defendant-Appellee Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), the issuer of

the insurance policy covering Motharam’s immovable property located at 637

Canal Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, that was damaged by wind and rain

during Hurricane Katrina. In its lawsuit, Motharam sought recovery from

Scottsdale in an amount greater than it had already paid on Motharam’s claim.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 27, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 09-30605 cons/W 09-30934

2

After a two-day trial, the jury rejected Motharam’s demands, and the district

court entered judgment dismissing Motharam’s action with prejudice.

Thereafter, the district court entered an order denying Motharam’s

motions for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) (which Motharam had

waived by failing to file a motion therefor at the close of the evidence) and,

alternatively, for a new trial under Rules 59(a) and 60. In so doing, the district

court patiently and exhaustively laid out the factual and legal bases for its

denials. Then, after Motharam filed a motion to reconsider that order, the

district court again set forth in detail the factual and legal bases for denying

reconsideration.

We have now examined the extensive record on appeal and the relevant

facts and applicable law as set forth in the briefs of the parties and as

supplemented by our independent research. As a result, we are convinced that

the correctly conducted jury trial and the verdict reached by the jury are fully

sustainable and free of reversible error, that the motions for judgment as a

matter of law, new trial, and reconsideration filed by Motharam were correctly

rejected by the district court for the cogent reasons set forth in its orders of

August 27 and September 24, 2009, and that the judgment of the district court

must be, and hereby is, AFFIRMED.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 2287

In re: CHARLETTE DUFRAY JOHNSON , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 1:19

- cv
- 00300

- DAF )

Submitted : January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Charlette Dufray Johnson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Charlette Dufray Johnson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to grant her summary judgment on her pending habeas petition

. We conclude that Johnson is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and shoul d be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the r elief sought. In re Murphy

- Brown, LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018)

. The relief sought by Johnson is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and lega l contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Michael Oduro Kwarteng v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00909

- CR

Trial court case number: 1369903

Trial court: 182nd District Court of Harris County

Our review of the above

- referenced appeal requires a supplemental clerk’s record

containing the pre

- trial sentencing report referenced at the September 18, 2013 sentencing

hearing in the underlying case. Accordingly, we order that the district court clerk file a

supplemental clerk’s record containing the pre

- trial sentencing report by no later than January

14 , 201 5

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 7, 2015
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

of Periodic Report
Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and Rule 15d-14(a)

I, Richard T. Allorto, Jr., certify that:

1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sierra Income Corporation (the Company);

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The Companys other certifying officer(s)
and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the Company and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the
Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter (the Companys fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5) The Companys other
certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 9, 2013



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Richard T. Allorto, Jr.  
|Richard T. Allorto, Jr.      
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
February 2, 2010

MEMORANDUM TO: Air Docket EPA - HQ - OAR- 2005 - 0161 SUBJECT: Details on the Adjustment of Sugarcane Data Based on

Marketing Year Data in the FAPRI - CARD Models The FAPRI
- CARD models report data in terms of marketing ye ars for a variety of commodities. Marketing years for different commodities do not necessaril y equal the same timeframe of other commodities. For instance, the crop sugarcane marketing year for “2011/2012” ( October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011 ) is more closely aligned in terms of time (months) with the “2010/2011” marketing year for corn (September 1, 2010 through August 31, 2011) , rather than the “2011/2012” marketing year for corn. Therefore, for the purposes of the final rulemaking anal ys is, data for sugarcane that are presented in terms of marketing ye ars are shifted by one marketing year to more closel y align with corn and other commodities in order to capture a more accurate representation of changes in acres and other variables in a given y ear. It should also be noted that the FAPRI
- CARD models present various data in terms of marketing ye ars, as well as calendar year. An y data presented in calendar year form (e.g., “2022”) represents data covering January through December of that ye ar. Raw data provided from the FAPRI
- CARD models for each of the cases do not reflect this adjustment. This analy

tical decision to adjust this data based on marketing year in this manner was made in consultation with the staff at the Center for Agriculture and Rural Development (C ARD) at Iowa State University who operate the FAPRI
- CARD models.
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 (0.56 MB)

Tags:police officer

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Exhibit 12.1



Certifications
I, Larry Youell, certify that:
1.            I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of FEC Resources Inc.;
2.            Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;
3.            Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
4.            The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
a.            designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;
b.            evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c.            presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5.            The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a.            all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
b.            any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's  internal control; and
6.            The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant change in internal controls or I other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
Date:  July 13, 2006
                                         /s/ Larry Youell
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2006

To Whom it may Concern,

We at Boston Engineering are pleased to submit this letter of support regarding the Section 333 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Commercial Use Exemption petition to the FAA by Unmanned Aerial Systems Development, Inc. (UASD) of Holliston, MA. Through their ongoing research initiatives, UASD stands to become a significant supplier of UAV technology and services in the robotics engineering research industry, both locally in New England and nationally.

Boston Engineering Corporation is a well-established engineering services organization that has delivered leading-edge products and system solutions to customers for over 19 years. Boston Engineering conducts design and analysis and testing of autonomous robotic systems. The company includes a multi-disciplined, cross-functional team of approximately 60 employees. We have headquarters with 20,500 sq. ft. of office and lab space in Waltham MA, where we specialize in ground-based and underwater robotics, electromechanical systems, development and use of embedded software, custom manufacturing systems, specialized motor controllers and actuators, and human-robot interaction. Since 2009 we have designed and built and
demonstrated two new Biomimetic underwater vehicles: ONR and NAVSEA’s Ghost swimmer and the DHS’s BIO Swimmer, Designed an autonomous control and manipulator for remote robotic door opening for TARDEC’s “AURIS” program, and are actively involved with the DARPA funded Human Robotic Interaction (HRI) “R-Lucid” program. Boston Engineering is a Gold-level PTC Channel Advantage VAR that offers training, sales & support, performance toolkits, and additional solutions for product optimization.

As leaders in the design and development of autonomous vehicles and robotics systems, BEC can attest to the unprecedented level of demand for safety and performance advancements that the impending integration of UAVs into our nation’s airspace has already created. Meeting these significant technology developments will require robust systems design and testing, and executing these tests under real world conditions will vastly improve results. Granting operators like UASD the authorization to conduct commercial operations will help foster such research programs with valuable data that will otherwise be missing from the development and growth of our nation’s UAV industry.

To this end, we urge the FAA to approve UASD’s commercial exemption petition as submitted, and look forward to participating fully in the continued growth of our nation’s flight programs.

Sincerely yours, 

# Mark Smithers

Mark Smithers Vice President, CTO Boston Engineering Corporation (781) 466-8010 MSmithers@Boston-Engineering.com



### ______________________________________________________________________________

_

Boston Engineering Corporation ● 300 Bear Hill Road, Waltham, MA 02451 ● 781-466-8010 ● Fax: 781-466-8020 ● www.boston-engineering.com
----

----

Tribunal de Justiça

----

ALTERAÇÃO DO REGULAMENTO DE PROCESSO DO TRIBUNAL DE PRIMEIRA INSTÂNCIA

O TRIBUNAL DE PRIMEIRA INSTÂNCIA DAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEIAS,

Tendo em conta o Tratado que institui a Comunidade Europeia, nomeadamente o quinto parágrafo do artigo 224.o,

Tendo em conta o Tratado que institui a Comunidade Europeia de Energia Atómica, designadamente o seu artigo 140.o, quinto parágrafo,

Tendo em conta o artigo 63.o do Protocolo relativo ao Estatuto do Tribunal de Justiça,

Tendo em conta o acordo do Tribunal de Justiça,

Tendo em conta a aprovação do Conselho, dada em 18 de Julho de 2005 e em 3 de Outubro de 2005,

Considerando o seguinte:

APROVOU AS SEGUINTES ALTERAÇÕES AO SEU REGULAMENTO DE PROCESSO:

Artigo 1.o

O Regulamento de Processo do Tribunal de Primeira Instância das Comunidades Europeias de 2 de Maio de 1991 (3), alterado em 15 de Setembro de 1994 (4), em 17 de Fevereiro de 1995 (5), em 6 de Julho de 1995 (6), em 12 de Março de 1997 (7), em 17 de Maio de 1999 (8), em 6 de Dezembro de 2000 (9), em 21 de Maio de 2003 (10), em 19 de Abril de 2004 (11) e em 21 de Abril de 2004 (12) é alterado do seguinte modo:

Artigo 2.o

As presentes alterações ao Regulamento de Processo, autênticas nas línguas mencionadas no n.o 1, artigo 35.o, do referido regulamento, serão publicadas no Jornal Oficial da União Europeia e entram em vigor no primeiro dia do segundo mês seguinte ao da sua publicação, com excepção dos pontos 17 e 18 do artigo 1.o

Os pontos 17 e 18 do artigo 1.o entram em vigor no dia de entrada em vigor do artigo 1.o do Anexo I do Estatuto do Tribunal de Justiça, nos termos do segundo parágrafo do artigo 4.o da Decisão 2004/752/CE, Euratom.

Feito no Luxemburgo, em 12 de Outubro de 2005.

O Secretario

E. COULON

O Presidente

B. VESTERDORF

----

(1)JO L 26 de 31.3.2003, p. 41.

(2)JO L 333 de 9.11.2004, p. 7.

(3)JO L 136 de 30.5.1991, p. 1.

(4)JO L 249 de 24.9.1994, p. 17.

(5)JO L 44 de 28.2.1995, p. 64.

(6)JO L 172 de 22.7.1995, p. 3.

(7)JO L 103 de 19.4.1997, p. 6.

(8)JO L 135 de 29.5.1999, p. 92.

(9)JO L 322 de 19.12.2000, p. 4.

(10)JO L 147 de 14.3.2003, p. 22.

(11)JO L 132 de 29.4.2004, p. 3.

(12)JO L 127 de 29.4.2004, p. 108.

----