alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA Outstanding Personnel of the Year Award goes to Distribution Corpus Christi’s Beckwith 

/ Published Jan. 9, 2020
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Corpus Christi, Texas, Deputy Commander, Jeremy Beckwith, received a Top Ten DLA Outstanding Personnel of the Year award.

A ceremony honoring Beckwith and other award winners was held in the DLA headquarters auditorium, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Dec. 6.

Beckwith is responsible for directing, managing, supervising, and the technical and administrative planning and execution of a distribution center responsible for the global distribution of rotary aviation repair parts to all Department of Defense services, other government agencies, the United States Army Aviation and Missile Command and the Corpus Christi Army Depot.

“Beckwith is a remarkable leader who lives his command’s philosophy which is to be technically competent, be value added to the organization, and have fun doing it,” said Army Lt. Col. Justin McGovern, commander, DDCT. “He believes in empowering leaders to ensure mission accomplishment and pushes his team to broaden their professional horizons through continual education and enterprise rotational assignments.”

Beckwith established and maintained outstanding relationships and earned the absolute trust of the DLA Distribution and CCAD command teams. He maintained an exceptional organizational culture that resulted in a top tier score and a seven-point improvement on DLA’s Culture Survey in 2019.

“He empowers our leaders and workers at all levels and their pride while upholding the DLA core values that resonates in everything we do,” said McGovern. 

In Beckwith’s nomination packet McGovern cited that Beckwith has mastered the art of solid leadership by challenging his workforce to think creatively by providing timely and sound guidance, mentorship and support to cultivate an environment of continuous process improvement.

With a team of 140 government and 107 contracted professionals, Beckwith led them to create, implement, and oversee all of DDCT’s programs to include: culture and leadership, management analysis, program management, continuous improvement, training workforce development and audit readiness compliance. Beckwith’s direct oversite of the safety program resulted in outstanding records. His in-depth production review and decisive action plans successfully sustained remarkable performances throughout all of DLA’s critical metrics. Under Beckwith’s leadership, his team was able to sustain those levels of performance despite a full time employee shortfall of 14% and a workload increase of 7%.

“He selflessly serves his workforce, embracing his leadership philosophy of COAL, being Courteous, Outwardly focused, Available and to Lead by example.  They trust him explicitly; a feat pursued by most, attained only by a few” stated McGovern.
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Malta (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Malta (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb  | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov  | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ---- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---- | ---
|2021                                                                                                                              |     |      |     |     |     |     |     |     | W   |     |      |    
|2022                                                                                                                              |     | 9.24 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | 8.58 |    
|2023                                                                                                                              | W   |      |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |    
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### Com. v. Riley 31

12/31/2015

294 EAL (2015)

31

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1146
No. 12-506.

#### Hettinga et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Clarence Jenkins, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 22]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered on or about September 10, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by plaintiffs briefs, granted defendant City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*292There was probable cause for plaintiffs arrest, which requires a showing of “such grounds as would induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious person, under the circumstances, to believe that [the subject] had committed the [crime]” *(Smith v County of Nassau,*34 NY2d 18, 25 [1974]). Accepting plaintiffs statements as true, as we must on defendant’s motion for summary judgment *(Henderson v City of New York,*178 AD2d 129, 130 [1991]), probable cause was established by the undisputed essential facts that the complainant was seriously injured when he was stabbed by plaintiff several times with an awl (which plaintiff carried for protection) during the course of an altercation, and that the complainant charged that plaintiff was the aggressor *(see Drayton v City of New York,*292 AD2d 182, 183 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 604 [2002]). What is required is not “proof sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but merely information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been . . . committed” *(People v Bigelow,*66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985], quoted in *Shapiro v County of Nassau,*202 AD2d 358 [1994], *lv denied*83 NY2d 760 [1994]).

Plaintiff’s indictment for assault created a presumption of probable cause for his arrest and detention; which may be overcome only by evidence establishing that the police witness misrepresented or falsified evidence before the grand jury *(see Colon v City of New York,*60 NY2d 78, 82-83 [1983]). Under the circumstances at bar, and considering the evidence which plaintiff alleges was withheld, the undisputed remaining facts were sufficient to procure the underlying criminal indictment. Despite plaintiffs subsequent acquittal, there was nonetheless probable cause for the arresting officers’ actions *(see Quigley v City of Auburn,*267 AD2d 978, 980 [1999]).

The presence of probable cause, as well as the failure to demonstrate actual malice on the part of the arresting officers, is also fatal to plaintiffs cause of action for malicious prosecution *(Shapiro v County of Nassau, supra).*Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald DeJesus-Plaza, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 14]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J.), rendered January 20, 2016, as amended July 25, 2016, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree (two counts) and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record *(see People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 998 [1982]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). Defendant has not shown *480that any of counsel’s alleged deficiencies fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, or that, viewed individually or collectively, they deprived defendant of a fair trial or affected the outcome of the case. In particular, counsel’s deliberate elicitation, in an effort to discredit the police investigation, of evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible was both objectively reasonable and nonprejudicial *(see e.g. People v Steel,*207 AD2d 744, 744-745 [1st Dept 1994], *lv denied*84 NY2d 1039 [1995]). Similarly, to the extent the record permits review, we reject defendant’s claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to preserve certain issues, and we do not find that any lack of preservation may be excused on the ground of ineffective assistance.

The court properly completed the trial in defendant’s absence, after conducting a sufficient inquiry to determine that the absence was deliberate and that defendant thus forfeited his right to be present at trial *(see People v Redzeposki,*7 NY3d 725 [2006]; *People v Mejia,*268 AD2d 286 [1st Dept 2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 837 [2000]). Defendant, who had been attending the trial, failed to appear on the day that the court was scheduled to charge the jury. There was no reason to believe defendant’s absence had resulted from some event beyond his control, and his family believed that he had gone to see his son in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, defendant’s continued failure to appear confirmed the deliberate nature of his absence.

Defendant did not preserve his challenges to the prosecutor’s summation and to the court’s response to a jury note, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

          I, Timothy A. Dawson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Mississippi Chemical Corporation (the "Company") hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (the "Act"), that based on my knowledge:

          1.          The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), dated February 14, 2003, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 February 14, 2003 

 

                                                                                /s/ Timothy A. Dawson			
                                                                                Timothy A. Dawson

                                                                                Senior Vice President and

                                                                                Chief Financial Officer

 

          The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise.
2017-1628.

#### Copeland v. Healy.

In Mandamus. On respondent’s motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1734

MICHAEL D. WILKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusJUDGE HENDERSON; WOODROW P. LIPSCOMB, Attorney; WILLIAM SUGG, Judge; CHARLES MCCORMICK, Judge; JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW COMMISSION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-899) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 22, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Anton Joseph Stelly, William S. Smithers, Jr., THOMPSON, SMITHERS, NEWMAN & WADE, Richmond, Virginia; Richard Cullen, Gregory E. Lucyk, Claude Alexander Allen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Lipscomb, Sugg, McCormick, and Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order did not dispose of all the defendants in the action. This court may exercise jurisdiction onlyover final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 







EXHIBIT 10.42

Assumption of Guarantee for Payment of
Consideration for the Transfer of Ownership Interest

On March 04, 2005 Apron, s.r.o., Id. no.: 47913304, seated at Sobolákova 309,
148 00 Praha 4, Kunratice, (hereafter Apron), as the Purchaser, and AESP,
Inc., seated at 1810 N.E. 144th Street, North Miami, FL 33181, U.S.A.,
(hereafter AESP), as the Transferor, entered into a Contract on Transfer of
Ownership Interest in INTELEK spol. s r.o., seated at Vlárská 953/22, 627 00
Brno, the Czech Republic, registered with the Commercial Register kept by the
Regional Court in Brno, Section C, Insert no. 12338, Id. no.: 49446118
(hereafter the Company),on the basis of which AESP has transferred to Apron
100% ownership interest in the Company (hereafter the Contract on Transfer of
Ownership Interest ).

With regard to the above-mentioned, AESP and Ing. Ivo Kraváek, birth no.
610920/1461, resident at Brno, Dominikánské nám. 8, post code: 602 00,
(hereafter Ing. Kraváek)have agreed that Ing. Kraváek shall
pay to AESP the Consideration for the transfer of the ownership interest in the
Company in the amount of USD 540.000,- (slovy: five hundred forty thousand US
dollars), in the manner and terms stipulated in Sect. 3 of the Contract on
Transfer of Ownership Interest, by January 01, 2008 at the latest, should Apron
fail to do so as the Purchaser.

With regard to the above-mentioned, I, Ing. Ivo Kraváek, hereby
expressly declare to AESP that I shall pay to AESP the Consideration for the
transfer of the ownership interest in the Company in the amount of USD 540,000
(in words: five hundred forty thousand US dollars), in the manner and terms
stipulated in Sect. 3 of the Contract on Transfer of Ownership Interest, by
January 01, 2008 at the latest, should Apron fail to do so as the Purchaser.

According to an agreement between AESP and Ing. Kraváek, this
Declaration of guarantee shall expire and become ineffective if the Contract on
Transfer of Ownership Interest dated March 04, 2005 is discharged for reasons
stipulated in Sect. 3 Para. 3 or Para. 4 thereof.

The participants to this Declaration confirm that they are familiar with the
contents of the Contract on Transfer of Ownership Interest.

Signed in Prague on March 4,
2005

/s/ Ivo Kravacek

---

/s/ Slav Stein
No. D-2697.

#### In re Disbarment of Prem.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see *ante,*p. 939.]
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LUKE PETRUSCHKE
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 902

[ February 13, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Andrew L. Siegel , Judge; L.T. Case No. 09

- 19779 CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney G eneral, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY
, C IKLIN and G ERBER
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
---

Exhibit 15.1

Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors Royal Standard Minerals Inc.

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 20-F
of our Independent Auditors Report dated May 29, 2012 on the consolidated
balance sheets of Royal Standard Minerals Inc. as of January 31, 2012 and 2011,
and the related consolidated statements of mineral properties, operations,
changes in shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
two-year period ended January 31, 2012.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference of such
report in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-161518) of Royal
Standard Minerals Inc.

/s/ MSCM
LLPChartered Accountants Licensed Public Accountants

Toronto, Ontario June 12, 2012

---
NO. 12

- 15

- 00138

- CR

ON APPEAL FROM THE 123 rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SHELBY COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. 2014 -CR- 19231

JUAN MERINO §

§ IN THE 12 TH COURT OF APPEALS

§ OF

vs. §

§

STATE OF TEXAS § TYLER, TEXAS

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRI EF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes Juan Merino , Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause,

and moves this Court to grant an extension of time to file appellant's brief, pursuant

to Rule 38.6 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Proce dure, and for good cause shows

the following:

1. This case is on appeal from the 123 rd District Court of Shelby County,

Texas.

2. The case below was styled the STATE OF TEXAS vs. Juan Merino

,

and numbered 2014

- CR

- 19231 . Appellant was convicted of Aggrava ted Sexual

Assault

.

4. Appellant was assessed a sentence of Sixty (60 ) years in Texas

Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division on April 16, 2015

.

5. Notice of appeal was given on April 23, 2015

.

6. The clerk's record was filed on June 3, 2015 and a supplemental clerk’s

record was filed on June 29, 2015; the reporter's record was filed on July 14, 2015

and the reporter’s exhibits were filed on July 15, 2015

. ACCEPTED

12-15-00138-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

8/12/2015 2:57:04 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK7. The appellate brief was presently due on August 13, 2015

.

8. Appellant requests an extension of time of thirty (30) days from the

current due date.

9. No extensions to file the brief ha ve been received in this cause.

10. Defendant is currently incarcerated.

11. Appellant relies on the following facts as good cause for the requested

extension:

Counsel currently has ten separate brief s due in the 12 th Court of Appeals and

the 9 th Court of Appeals , which include four due in to the this court in the month of

August

. Due to the time required to review records of each appeal, counsel is

requesting an extension of thirty days.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , Appellant prays that this

Court grant this Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant's Brief, and for such other

and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully subm itted:

/s/John D. Reeves

____________________ John D. Reeves

Attorney at Law

1007 Grant

Lufkin, Texas 75901

Phone (936) 632

- 160

Fax: (936) 632

- 1640

tessabellus@yahoo.com

SBOT # 16723000

Counsel for AppellantCERTIFICAT E OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. 10.1 (5), certify that I, the undersigned conferred

with opposing counsel who is not opposed to an extension.

/s/John D. Reeves

___________________________ John D. Reeves

CERTIFICATE OF SERVI CE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant’s

Motion to Extend Time to file Appellant’s Brief on this 12 th day of August , 2015

forwarded to State’s Attorney, Kenneth B. Florence, Shelby County, by electronic

service at s helbyda@sbcglobal.net

.

/s/John D. Reeves

__________________________ John D. Reeves

Attorney for Appellant,

Juan Merino
RICH FITZGERALD 

COUNTY EXECUTIVE 

COUNTYOF ALLEGHENY 

May 14, 2014 

Ms. Joyce Epps, Director 


Department of Environmental Protection 


Bureau of Air Quality 


Rachel Carson Building 


400 Market Street, P.O. Box 8468 


Harrisburg, PA 17105-8468 


Dear Ms. Epps: 

We are pleased to enclose one paper copy and an exact duplicate of this paper copy on DVD in 

searchable pdf file format of a supplement to Allegheny County's portion of the Pennsylvania State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Attainment of the 2006 PMl .

5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for the Liberty-Clairton area . This SIP revision is being tracked as our Revision Tracking Number 75. 

The primary SIP document was submitted to you on May 16, 2013. This enclosed document serves as a 

supplement to that SIP submittal, addressing transportation conformity and electric generating unit 

(EGU) emissions. Note that at the time of the development of the SIP and the supplement, the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) was under review at the u.S. Supreme Court. The Court has since ruled 

in favor of the CSAPR rule, supporting the emissions inventories used for the attainment demonstration . 

We request that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection approve this supplemental 

revision and forward it to the u.s. EPA Region III with a recommendation for approval. Please contact 

me if you have any questions . 

Sincerely, 

q~~~ Manager, ACHD Air Quality Program 

cc: 	 Kirit Dalal, PA DEP Central Office 


Stephen Hepler, PA DEP SW Regional Office 


Enclosures 


PMl .5 Supplemental SIP and Appendices 


A LLEGHENY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT' AIR QUALITY PROGRAM 


30 1 39~H STREET BUILDING #7 • PITISBURGH. PA 1 5201 -1 81 1 


PHONE (41 2) 578-8103 • FAX (41 2) 578-8144
No. 12-8509.

#### Green *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 12-8778.

#### Gibson *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Decided November 22, 2016

#### Abdus-Samad, Matter of, v Annucci

4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1101

denied