alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA Troop Support celebrates promotion of Army Lt. Col. Nakamura

/ Published Aug. 10, 2021
PHILADELPHIA, 
The Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support celebrated the promotion of Army Lt. Col. Benjamin Nakamura during a ceremony in Philadelphia Aug. 6.

DLA Troop Support Commander Army Brig. Gen. Eric Shirley presided over the ceremony. He welcomed Nakamura’s wife Danielle, who is a major in the Army Reserves and the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator for Army Support Activity at Fort Dix, and their three children: Aja, Aiko and Benjamin Jr.

Nakamura is currently the operations officer for the Clothing and Textiles supply chain.

“[Ben’s] work here has been vital in DLA Troop Support’s, and the Nation’s COVID-19 efforts,” Shirley said. “He helped us, and our whole of government partners like FEMA and the Department of Health and Human Services, secure and deliver more than $574 million of [personal protective equipment] and more than 200 million masks, coveralls, Tyvek suits and gowns.”

Nakamura thanked his extensive family who attended, from his and his wife’s families, to his Army and fraternity families.

“I am a product of everyone that you see in the room, so all the things that I am is the best of all of what you are,” Nakamura said. “I’m so thankful that I’ve been able to have you as a part of my life, and I really appreciate you taking time in this unique space we are in the world, to come here and share a little bit of time with me.”

Shirley imparted some advice to the new lieutenant colonel, including to stay humble and live up to his potential.

“As you remain committed to accomplishing the mission and caring for your teammates, these future milestones will certainly come to pass because you have demonstrated the clear potential for future service and leadership in our nation’s Army,” Shirley said.

During the ceremony, Nakamura’s wife and his aunt, Clara Snow, were presented with flowers of appreciation.

Nakamura, a Pittsburgh native, enlisted in the Army at the age of 21 and was trained as a 91W, Combat Medic. He deployed several times including to Baghdad, Iraq, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom as well as Kandahar and Kabul, Afghanistan, in support of Operation Resolute. He also served as the company commander of the 29th Brigade Support Company, 525th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade for 29 months.

In addition, Nakamura started a tutoring program for soldiers to boost their Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery scores in the “general” and “technical” categories while he was deployed to Iraq in 2007. As a result of his continued work in this program, he helped at least 40 soldiers raise their scores, helping them increase opportunities for new military careers and college options. Six of his former soldiers became officers.

He graduated from South Carolina State University as a Distinguished Military Graduate with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant into the Quartermaster Corps.
2017-0095.

#### State v. Underwood.

Hamilton App. No. C-150380.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating.
No. 09-1413.

#### Heather A. Davis, Petitioner v. Brouse McDowell, L.P.A., et al.

562 U.S. 832, 131 S. Ct. 118,

178 L. Ed. 2d 32,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6588.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 596 F.3d 1355.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                            2,227
<SECURITIES>                                      4,210
<RECEIVABLES>                                    16,459
<ALLOWANCES>                                        587
<INVENTORY>                                      12,202
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 34,902
<PP&E>                                           59,106
<DEPRECIATION>                                   40,652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   56,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            15,343
<BONDS>                                             161
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          1,342
<OTHER-SE>                                       38,132
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     56,304
<SALES>                                          18,884
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 18,884
<CGS>                                            14,486
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    14,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     (4)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     257
<INCOME-TAX>                                         90
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 167
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                        167
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.14

        

</TABLE>
No. 09-10847.

#### Omar Carrizosa-Flores, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 802, 131 S. Ct. 114,

178 L. Ed. 2d 2,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6334.

October 4, 2010.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of Carachuri-*3Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563, 130 S. Ct. 2577, 177 L. Ed. 2d 68 (2010).

Same case below, 365 Fed. Appx. 582.
Exhibit 11 -- Computation of Earnings Per Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Fiscal Year Ended December 31,
                                              1998            1997            1996
                                           -----------     -----------     -----------
<S>                                        <C>             <C>             <C>         
BASIC & FULLY-DILUTED *

             Net loss                      $  (113,000)    $  (602,000)    $   (68,000)

             Average shares outstanding      1,265,000       1,051,329               1

             Net loss per share amount     $     (0.09)    $     (0.57)             --
<FN>
-------------
(*) Based on the net loss for the periods, there was no dilutive effect.
</TABLE>
# DLA, industry strengthen partnerships to support warfighters

/ Published Dec. 21, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic and other agency senior leaders hosted a Demand Forecast webinar Dec. 17 with leaders from 11 industry associations to discuss anticipated 2021 contract requirements on behalf of the military services and Whole of Government agencies that DLA supports.Since 2018, DLA has held an industry day to provide corporate and supply chain demand forecast data to industry participants.Due to COVID-19 restrictions, this year’s forum was held virtually. DLA leaders requested that industry association participants disseminate the information to their members – which include many of DLA’s commercial vendors – so that the industrial base can best posture to meet the military’s needs.DLA Logistics Operations Director Air Force Maj. Gen. Allan Day said 2021 requirements from the military services will likely mirror 2019 rather than 2020. He briefed participants on projected sales trends by supply chains including hardware; clothing and textiles; construction and equipment; medical and subsistence; and energy.Over a dozen representatives attended from the Aerospace Industries Association, National Defense Industrial Association, American Petroleum Institute, National Council of Textile Organizations, American Apparel & Footwear Association, Coalition for Government Procurement, National Association of Manufacturers, SourceAmerica, National Defense Transportation Association, National Institute for the Blind, and the Professional Services Council.A copy of the presentation can be found on the Demand Forecast page.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          74,455
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  177,195
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,761,809
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         702,280
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,775,039
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      3,867,010
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,011,899
<COMMON>                                       696,774
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,086,431)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,775,039
<SALES>                                        932,237
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,193,143
<CGS>                                          882,832
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,079,367
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,447
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (119,627)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (119,627)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (119,627)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.06)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert O’Connor, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 536]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia M. Núñez, J.), entered on or about July 7, 2016, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion when it declined to grant defendant’s request for a downward departure to level two *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841 [2014]). Defendant’s prior felony sex crime conviction automatically resulted in an override to a risk level three, regardless of any point assessments, and there were no mitigating factors that were not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument, or that outweighed the seriousness of the underlying offense.

Although the People obtained records of defendant’s prison sex offender treatment by serving a subpoena on the Department of Correction and Community Supervision that was neither court-ordered nor on notice to defendant, we find that, to the extent there was any violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub L 104-191, 110 US Stat 1936) and its accompanying privacy rules (45 CFR parts 160, 164), or of any applicable CPLR provisions, there is no basis for a remand for further proceedings. In seeking a downward departure from his presumptive risk level, defendant relied, in part, on his completion of sex offender treatment as a mitigating factor, and as such, he affirmatively put his treatment at issue, and thus waived his claims that the records were improperly obtained *(see People v Vazquez,*148 AD3d 601, 602 [1st Dept 2017]).

In any event, we find the error harmless. The court had ample grounds on which to deny the downward departure, including defendant’s failure to truly accept responsibility.

We decline to revisit our determination in *Vazquez,*and we find unpersuasive defendant’s attempts to distinguish that case.

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.
No. 12-8264.

#### Furlow *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Annual Report of China Technology Development Group Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we,Xu Qian, Alan Li and Michael Siu, the ChiefExecutive Officer, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, tothe best of our knowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this certificationis being furnished and not deemed filed.September 19, 2006    /s/ Xu Qian  Xu Qian  Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer   /s/Alan Li  Alan Li  Executive Director and Co-Chief Executive Officer      /s/ Michael Siu  Michael Siu  Executive Director, Chief FinancialOfficer and Secretary  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
#### Morabito, Matter of, v Martens

3d Dept: 149 AD3d 1316

denied
No. 12-8239.

#### Wright, aka Wright El *v.*Jackson, Correctional Administrator, Nash Correctional Institution.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-5135.

#### Robert Wooten, Petitioner v. California, et al.

562 U.S. 823, 131 S. Ct. 385,

178 L. Ed. 2d 19,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6385.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 25, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 783.
No. 85-236.

#### Eichenlaub *v.*Yurky et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 474 U. S. 1049.] Judgment vacated and case remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider whether the case is moot.
#### Com. v. Formica

03/29/2016

863 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 98
No. 12-8594.

#### Rabbia *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Exhibit 13.2

**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 Asia Pacific Wire & Cable Corporation Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ivan Hsia, Chief Financial Officer****of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15102]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-228-000]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

June 2, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 29, 1998, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 
tendered for filing, as part of its FERC Gas Tariff Second Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet proposed to become effective 
June 1, 1998:

Thirty-Eighth Revised Sheet No. 18

    ANR states that the above-referenced tariff sheet is being filed by 
ANR to reflect the impact of the annual update of the Eligible MDQ that 
is used to calculate its currently effective Gas Supply Realignment 
(GSR) and Pricing Differential (PD) Reservation Surcharges, as required 
by and consistent with ANR's transition cost recovery mechanism set 
forth in its tariff. ANR advises that the Eligible MDQ has increased by 
approximately three percent, thereby reducing the level of the PD 
surcharge. The GSR surcharge, however, did not change as a result of 
the eligible MDQ increase.
    Any person desiring the be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Section 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15102 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Daphne O.B. Lewis, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[63 NYS3d 241]—

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered May 19, 2016, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted since the record shows that defendant Kohler, a police officer, was operating a police vehicle while performing an emergency operation and did not recklessly disregard the safety of others before the accident happened *(see Daniels v City of New York,*28 AD3d 415 [2d Dept 2006], *lv dismissed in part, denied in part*7 NY3d 825 [2006]). The fact that Koehler was mistaken in believing that plaintiff was stopping her vehicle when he proceeded to pass through the red light did not render his conduct reckless. Koehler testified that as he approached the intersection, he reduced his speed and looked left and right. He was traveling approximately 10 miles above the speed limit when the accident occurred. Koehler attempted to avoid colliding with plaintiff by braking hard and turning the steering wheel to the right upon realizing that plaintiff’s vehicle had entered the intersection *(see Frezzell v City of New York,*105 AD3d 620 [1st Dept 2013], *affd*24 NY3d 213 [2014]; *Quock v City of New York,*110 AD3d 488 [1st Dept 2013]). The fact that there is a question as to whether the police vehicle’s lights and siren were activated is not material because Koehler was not required to activate either of these devices in order to be entitled to the statutory privilege of passing through a red light *(see Flynn v Sambuca Taxi, LLC,*123 AD3d 501, 502 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.R, Andrias, Gische, Kern and Singh, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10Q AS OF JUNE 27, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1997
<CASH>                                     373,286,368
<RECEIVABLES>                              343,230,787
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                       15,072,400
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                  0
<PP&E>                                       8,709,923
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             757,356,743
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                 667,684,439
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       145,178
<OTHER-SE>                                  66,989,094
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               757,356,743
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                    0
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                        36,622,800
<COMMISSIONS>                               51,936,902
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                3,663,685
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          18,428,854
<COMPENSATION>                              19,290,808
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             21,425,113
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  21,425,113
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,822,149
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-7464.

No. 12-7487.

#### Brown *v.*United States, Pelullo *v.*United States,

*ante,*p. 1115; and

*ante,*p. 1138. Petitions for rehearing denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.