alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Former leader behind mine-resistant vehicles inducted into DLA Hall of Fame

/ Published Jan. 7, 2022
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Former Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Deputy Commander James McClaugherty has earned a place in the 2021 DLA Hall of Fame for overseeing increased material availability and inventory reduction.

McClaugherty oversaw sustainment support for mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles. Parts support for MRAPs contributed significantly to the high availability of vehicles during operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, saving lives of American and allied warfighters, according to McClaugherty’s nomination.

He also led programs to speed wholesale contracting processes and improve on-hand stock of critical, high-demand items, resulting in record-high levels of customer satisfaction in material availability.

In organizational change, McClaugherty championed DLA Land and Maritime’s Enterprise Resource Planning transformation to the Enterprise Business Systems suite. He also spearheaded Base Realignment and Closure decisions involving privatization of tires for the Defense Department; transfer of consumable items from the military services; and the transfer of industrial supply, storage and distribution functions to DLA.

As an advocate for workforce diversity, McClaugherty increased minority group hiring in the Corporate Intern Program by 10% and tripled hiring of employees with disabilities. He addressed diversity gaps by creating a mentorship program to help underrepresented, mid-career aspirants compete for senior leadership opportunities.

“A model leader, he was DLA’s designated Leadership Functional Community manager, advocating leadership development throughout the agency’s 26,000-employee workforce,” according to the nomination.

McClaugherty retired in 2017 as a member of the senior executive service after 30 years with the Air Force and 22 years of federal service.

Visit DLA’s Hall of Fame website for more information about other 2021 inductees and members from previous years.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 2

- NM

- 22 0

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 10(a)

                              ASSIGNMENT OF PATENT

WHEREAS, I, John Capezzuto, an individual, currently chief executive officer of
Solvis Group, Inc., hereinafter referred to as patentee, did obtain a United
States Patent for an improvement in Back-Lit Multi-Image Transparency, No.
5,782,026 filed in July 1999; and whereas, I am now the sole owner of said
patent, and,

WHEREAS, Solvis Group, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"assignee", whose mailing address is c/o Imaging Technologies Corporation, 17075
Via Del Campo, San Diego, California 92127, is desirous of acquiring the entire
right, title and interest in the same;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sums paid pursuant to the terms of the
Share Acquisition Agreement, dated July 25, 2002, and effective as of January
14, 2003 by and between Solvis Group, Inc. and Imaging Technologies Corporation,
and other good and valuable consideration, I, the patentee, by these presents do
sell, assign and transfer unto said assignee the entire right, title and
interest in and to the said Patent aforesaid; the same to be held and enjoyed by
the said assignee for his own use and behoof, and for his legal representatives
and assigns, to the full end of the term for which said Patent is granted, as
fully and entirely as the same would have been held by me had this assignment
and sale not been made.

Executed this 14th day of January 2003, at 17075 Via Del Campo, San Diego,
California 92127.

/s/ John Capezzuto
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Jones, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 625]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered October 3, 2002, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s verdict, which rejected defendant’s agency defense, was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s determinations concerning credibility. The credible evi*157dence established that defendant acted for his own benefit in promoting and negotiating the sale *(see People v Lam Lek Chong,*45 NY2d 64, 74-75 [1978], *cert denied*439 US 935 [1978]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Williams, JJ.
#### Charles Britz, Respondent, v Grace Industries, LLC, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[65 NYS3d 453]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered January 28, 2017, which granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add a demand for punitive damages against defendant Grace Industries, LLC (Grace), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The proposed amended complaint alleges that Grace negligently failed to fill in a trench on the side of the road two days prior to the motor vehicle accident in which plaintiff was injured, that Grace parked construction vehicles by the roadway, and that its personnel joked around when they signed into a safety meeting. This conduct, if proven, is insufficient for the imposition of punitive damages, because it cannot be viewed as a conscious and deliberate disregard of the rights of others *(see Marinaccio v Town of Clarence,*20 NY3d 506, 511 [2013]). Accordingly, leave to amend is denied *(see Eighth Ave. Garage Corp. v H.K.L. Realty Corp.,*60 AD3d 404 [1st Dept 2009], *lv dismissed*12 NY3d 880 [2009]).

Concur—Gische, J.P., Webber, Oing, Singh and Moulton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
ARTICLE 5 FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE (FDS) FOR PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 10-Q
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the June
30, 1999 Form 10-Q, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>          0000067182
<NAME>         JOYCE NICHOLS
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                                   693
<SECURITIES>                                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                          5,752
<ALLOWANCES>                                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                            2,076
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                       9,152
<PP&E>                                                                49,230
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        24,304
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                        43,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 14,106
<BONDS>                                                                3,723
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                              626
<COMMON>                                                                 900
<OTHER-SE>                                                            17,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                          43,234
<SALES>                                                               25,957  <F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      26,429  <F1>
<CGS>                                                                 16,233
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         17,430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       5,361
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                       159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        1,727
<INCOME-TAX>                                                             514
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    1,213
<DISCONTINUED>                                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           1,213
<EPS-BASIC>                                                           1.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           1.51
<FN>
<F1> SALES AND TOTAL REVENUES INCLUDE $2,974 MILLION OF EXCISE AND STATE
GASOLINE TAXES


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

HORIZON KINETICS LLC, §

HORIZON KINETICS ASSET §

MANAGEMENT LLC, SOFTVEST § No. 478, 2023

ADVISORS, LLC, AND SOFTVEST, §

L.P., §

§ Court Below: Court of Chancery of

Defendants-Below, § the State of Delaware

Appellants, §

§ C.A. No. 2022-1066

v. §

§ 

TEXAS PACIFIC LAND §

CORPORATION, §

§

Plaintiff-Below, §

Appellee. §

 Submitted: February 21, 2024

 Decided: February 26, 2024

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and 

GRIFFITHS, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.

ORDER

This 26th day of February, 2024, after careful consideration of the parties’ 

briefs and the record below, and following oral argument, we find it evident that the 

judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the 

reasons stated in the Post-Trial Opinion dated December 1, 2023, and the Final Order 

and Judgment dated December 18, 2023, entering final judgment in favor of 

plaintiff-below, appellee Texas Pacific Land Corporation. 
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 

Chancery is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow

Justice
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Form
S-8 No. 333-36933 pertaining to the Specialty Care Network, Inc. 1996 Equity
Compensation Plan of our reports dated March 20, 1998 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Specialty Care Network, Inc.
and subsidiary and February 13, 1998 with respect to the financial statements of
Reconstructive Orthopaedic Associates II, P.C. (successor to Reconstructive
Orthopaedic Associates, Inc.) included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Specialty Care Network, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                            /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                -----------------
                                                Ernst & Young LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 27, 1998
EXHIBIT 8



List of Subsidiaries



|                                                    |  | Ownership& Votingpower |  
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | -
|Company                                             |  | 2002                   |  
|Santiago Leasing S.A.                               |  | 99.50                  | %
|Santiago Corredores de Bolsa Ltda.                  |  | 99.20                  | %
|Santander S.A. Administradora Gral. de Fondos       |  | 99.96                  | %
|Santiago S.A. Administradora de Fondos de Inversión |  |                       |  
|Santiago Asesorías Financieras Ltda.                |  |                       |  
|Santiago Agente de Valores Ltda.                    |  |                       |  
|Santiago Corredora de Seguros Ltda.                 |  |                       |  
|Cobranzas y Recaudaciones Ltda. (C y R)             |  | 99.90                  | %
|Santiago Factoring Ltda.                            |  | 99.90                  | %
|Santander S.A. Agente de Valores                    |  | 99.03                  | %
|Santander Administradora de Fondos Mutuos S.A.      |  | 99.96                  | %
|Santander S.A. Sociedad Securitizadora              |  | 99.64                  | %
|Corredora de Seguros Santander Ltda.                |  | 99.99                  | %
No. 09-11016.

#### Nilima Mehra, Petitioner v. Continental Casualty Company, et al.; and Nilima Mehra, Petitioner v. Kia Saeian, et al.

562 U.S. 859, 131 S. Ct. 131,

178 L. Ed. 2d 79,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5930,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, denied.

Same case below, 322 Wis. 2d 735, 778 N.W.2d 172 (first judgment).
|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                 
|View History:                                                                  
|                                                                               
|Kentucky Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                               
|                                                                               
|Kentucky Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         | 101,227 | 103,484
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 107,600 | 107,600 | 107,600 | 107,600 | 107,600 | 107,571 | 107,572 | 107,647 | 107,596 | 107,596
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 107,596 | 107,596 | 107,596 |         |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = 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
No. 10-60.

#### Steven A. Maher, Petitioner v. Bank One, N.A., et al.

562 U.S. 892, 131 S. Ct. 264,

178 L. Ed. 2d 140,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6310.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two, denied.
Exhibit 31.2I, William W. Phillips, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Harrington West FinancialGroup, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date: November 10, 2006                                                              /s/ WILLIAM W. PHILLIPS   William W. Phillips,   President, Chief Operating Officer and
**Exhibit
      32(b)**











**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 accompanying Quarterly Report of ALLTEL Corporation (the
      Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      Report), I, Sharilyn S. Gasaway, Executive Vice President - Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
      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.








/s/
      Sharilyn S. Gasaway


Sharilyn
      S. Gasaway


Executive
      Vice President - Chief Financial Officer


November
      8, 2006



































A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      ALLTEL Corporation and will be retained by ALLTEL Corporation and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
Order entered May 1, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00507-CR

FLOR DEMARI BALCARCEL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MB10-33676C

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On April 29, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings appellant’s brief had not 

been filed. Appellant has tendered his brief, together with an extension motion. Therefore, in 

the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the April 29, 2015 order requiring findings.

We GRANT the April 29, 2015 extension motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed as 

of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
                               [KPMG LETTERHEAD]



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
Claremont Technology Group, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-336701) on Form S-4 and in the registration statements (Nos. 33-358205 and
33-358209) of Complete Business Solutions, Inc. of our report dated August 14,
1997, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders'
equity, and cash flows of Claremont Technology Group, Inc. and subsidiaries for
the year ended June 30, 1997, which report appears in the Form 10-K of Complete
Business Solutions, Inc. dated on or about March 27, 2000.




KPMG LLP



Portland, Oregon
March 27, 2000
<PAGE>   2



                               [KPMG LETTERHEAD]

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

The Board of Directors of
Claremont Technology Group, Inc.
  and Subsidiaries:

We have audited the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders'
equity, and cash flows of Claremont Technology Group, Inc. and subsidiaries for
the year ended June 30, 1997 not presented separately herein. These
consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated
financial statements based upon our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also
includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the results of Claremont Technology Group,
Inc. and subsidiaries operations and their cash flows for the year ended June
30, 1997 in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

KPMG LLP



Portland, Oregon
August 14, 1997
No. 09-1494.

#### Michael Kleinman, et al., Petitioners v. City of San Marcos, Texas.

562 U.S. 837, 131 S. Ct. 159,

178 L. Ed. 2d 39,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5847.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 597 F.3d 323.