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 (10.39 MB)

Tags:Dover AFB, 436th Airlift Wing, 436 AW, DAFB, radiological, 436th Aerial Port Squadron, 436th APS, IPE, Aerial Port, Rapid Global Mobility, 436th LRS, Super Port, CRAF, Civil Reserve Air Fleet, 436th Logistics Readiness Squadron, Individual Protective Equipment , Department of Defense, nuclear, AMC, Air Mobility Command, CBRN, DoD, Chemical, Biological, Dover Air Force Base, Team Dover, readiness

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAR 19 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVID P. SCHNEIDER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

HERBERT R. TILLERY, Colonel,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 98-3140

(D.C. No. 94-3478-RDR)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Petitioner David P. Schneider, a military prisoner appearing pro se, appeals

from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. 

Petitioner was convicted by a general court-martial of premeditated

attempted murder and conduct unbecoming an officer, namely, perjury and

adultery. The district court denied petitioner relief under § 2241. On appeal,

petitioner argues that: (1) the general court-martial lacked jurisdiction; (2) the

evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for adultery; (3) his conviction

for perjury was barred by collateral estoppel; (4) his sentence violates the Tenth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to the extent it authorized the forfeiture of

his salary to his ex-wife in an amount that exceeds the terms of his civilian

divorce decree; and (5) his transfer to a federal prison resulted in an ex post facto

violation, because he receives semi-annual parole hearings rather than the annual

reviews he received while housed in a military facility. 

We review de novo the district court’s denial of petitioner’s habeas

petition. See Bradshaw v. Story , 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). We have

carefully reviewed the district court’s decision, petitioner’s brief, and the record

on appeal. The district court did not discuss petitioner’s ex post facto argument. 

We reject this argument for the same reasons we explained in Hirsch v. Secretary

of the Army , No. 98-1468, 1999 WL 110549, at *1-*2 (10th Cir. Mar. 2, 1999)
-3-

(order and judgment). In all other respects, we find no error or omission in the

district court’s March 26, 1998 decision, and we affirm for substantially the same

reasons set forth in that order. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 339 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 339

          Commemorating the 150th anniversary of Mayo Clinic.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 27, 2014

 Mr. Franken (for himself, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Rubio, and Ms. Baldwin) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
               on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
          Commemorating the 150th anniversary of Mayo Clinic.

Whereas Dr. William Worrall Mayo first announced his plans to establish a 
        medical practice in Rochester, Minnesota, on January 27, 1864;
Whereas 2014 marks 150 years of Mayo Clinic providing continuous, quality 
        service to patients;
Whereas the Mayo Clinic model of integrated, high-quality health care has become 
        an international model for providing health care;
Whereas the many historic achievements of Mayo Clinic include--

    (1) developing the first integrated, multi-specialty practice of 
medicine;

    (2) creating the first anti-blackout suits for military pilots during 
World War II;

    (3) winning the Nobel Prize in 1950 for discovering cortisone;

    (4) developing a DNA test that detects anthrax in less than 1 hour; and

    (5) continuing a tradition of helping individuals in the most need of 
help, including by deploying medical teams to earthquake-stricken Haiti;

Whereas Mayo Clinic continues to value compassion, integrity, quality, and 
        innovation in its leadership around the world; and
Whereas Mayo Clinic is considered a premiere global center of health and healing 
        dedicated to medical care, research, and education: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the Senate commemorates the 150th anniversary of 
Mayo Clinic.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered March 27, 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01106

- CR

GERARDO ISRAEL STRAU SS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204 th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F 17

- 33722

- Q



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s March 25, 2019 motion to extend time to file appellant’s

brief. We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER the brief received March 2 5 , 20 19 filed as

of the date of this order.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Santa Fe Gold Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Pierce Carson,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 results of
      operations of the Company, as of, and for the periods presented in the
      Report.

Date: September 27, 2010

By: /s/ W. Pierce
Carson       W. Pierce
Carson       President, Chief Executive
Officer,
         Director and Chief Financial Officer

---
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Philip Urison, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

December 16, 1958.

*Abraham Stember*for petitioner.

*D.*itfi *J. Freiberger*for Mabel Urison.

Maximilian Moss, S.

Petitioner, named as executor in the propounded instrument, seeks an order striking out an answer *696filed by decedent’s widow. It appears that the propounded instrument antedates the marriage between decedent and his widow and no provision is made for her in said instrument. The widow’s answer alleges that under the provisions of section 35 and subdivision 4 of section 83 of the Decedent Estate Law, she is entitled to payment of $10,000 plus one half of the residue and denies knowledge or information sufficient to form belief with respect to the validity of the instrument offered for probate or whether it was properly executed.

While the statutory provisions recited in the answer give the widow a right to share in her husband’s estate, the provisions do not deny petitioner the right to the issuance of letters testamentary. The widow’s contention is directed to distribution, not to probate. Her answer pertaining to the manner of distribution must be stricken *(Matter of Deichmiller,*69 N. Y. S. 2d 544). A denial of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief of the allegations of a probate petition pertaining either to the validity of the instrument offered for probate or its execution is insufficient to raise such issues. The practice in a Surrogate’s Court requires that an answer shall contain a plain and concise statement of facts affirmatively stating the objections or defense to the propounded instrument (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 49) and no provision is made for a denial as interposed. Nevertheless, the widow will be permitted to file within 10 days after publication of this decision, on payment of filing fees, an amended answer properly raising the issues now attempted to be raised by the allegations of paragraph 1 *‘*V ” of her answer. Upon the filing and service of such answer as indicated the motion in respect of said paragraph “ V ” will be denied, otherwise it will be deemed granted *(Matter of Broch,*12 Misc 2d 364; *Matter of Dixon,*7 Misc 2d 812, 813, affd. 2 A D 2d 987, motion for leave to appeal denied 3 A D 2d 672; *Matter of Campbell,*140 N. Y. S. 2d 863).

Settle order on notice.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT Section 1350 Certification as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    The undersigned officer of Earth Energy Reserves, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2011 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date: February 21, 2012 By: /s/ Steven A. Kranker  Steven A. Kranker Principal Executive Officer   Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT Section 1350 Certification as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    The undersigned officer of Earth Energy Reserves, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2011 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date: February 21, 2012 By: /s/Doyle Pennington Doyle Pennington Interim Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Unilens Vision Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 20-F for the year ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alfred W. Vitale,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 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 results of operations of the
Company.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.


/s/ Alfred W. Vitale
----------------------------------------
Alfred W. Vitale
President/Chief 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 (0.16 MB)

Tags:BENS, DLA Energy 

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 436 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 436

Notifying the House of Representatives of the election of a Sergeant at 
                   Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 5, 2014

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Notifying the House of Representatives of the election of a Sergeant at 
                   Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives be notified of the 
election of the Honorable Andrew B. Willison as Sergeant at Arms and 
Doorkeeper of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed December 22, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2042

Lower Tribunal No. 19-34200 

________________

Jorge Milan, etc., et al., 

Petitioners,

vs.

John Fanning, et al.,

Respondents.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction –Prohibition.

Rhea P. Grossman (Fort Lauderdale), for petitioner Jorge Milan; Saul 

Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Angela C. de Cespedes, Hilda Piloto and 

Samuel E. Bordoni-Cowley, for petitioners South Florida Stadium LLC and 

Miami Dolphins Ltd. 

Davis Goldman, PLLC, and Aaron P. Davis; Harris Appeals, P.A., 

Andrew A. Harris and Grace Mackey Streicher (Pam Beach Gardens); 

Robert Allen Law, P.A., and Adrian Z. Karborani, for respondent John 

Fanning.

Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. 

GORDO, J.
2

Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition from an order denying their sworn 

motions to disqualify the trial judge. “In determining the legal sufficiency of 

a motion for disqualification, the test is ‘whether “the facts alleged (which 

must be taken as true) would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear 

that he could not get a fair and impartial trial.”’” Molina v. Perez, 187 So. 3d 

909, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (quoting Brofman v. Fla. Hearing Care Ctr., 

Inc., 703 So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)). While the trial judge’s 

comments may not have been intended to reflect his beliefs as to the merits 

of the underlying claims, “the question of disqualification focuses not on what 

the judge intended, but rather how the message is received and the basis of 

the feeling.” Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. 2000 Island Blvd. Condo. Ass’n, 

153 So. 3d 384, 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (citing Livingston v. State, 441 So.

2d 1083, 1086 (Fla. 1983)). “While a trial judge may form mental 

impressions and opinions during the course of hearing evidence in a case, 

the judge is not permitted to pre-judge the case.” Kates v. Seidenman, 881 

So. 2d 56, 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). It is clear from the transcript that the trial 

judge heard and saw evidence regarding the incident, but only Respondent’s 

evidence. The trial judge’s comments concerning that evidence, made 

before the petitioners even had an opportunity to present their argument

“‘could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the judge had crossed that 
3

line from forming mental impressions to prejudging the issue.’” 1440 Plaza, 

LLC v. New Gala Bldg., LLC, 314 So. 3d 555, 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) 

(quoting Barnett v. Barnett, 727 So. 2d 311, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)). We 

agree that the comments could reasonably have caused petitioners to fear 

that they would not receive a fair and impartial trial. 

Petition granted.
EPA Reg. No. 71368-60 

Vol. 1
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 (1.78 MB)

Tags:retirement, debord, Larry Dunn

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

STEPHEN H. STETLER,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 679 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.