alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cumberland York Area Local Defense Group Hosts Military/Elected Official Reception
 
  By Dawn Bonsell, DLA Distribution Public Affairs Officer
  The Cumberland York Area Local Defense Group hosted the first annual Military Leadership/Elected Officials Reception Oct. 1 at the Susquehanna Club, located on the Defense Distribution Center Susquehanna military base in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. Elected officials included U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, Rep. Dawn Keefer, Rep. Barb Gleim, Rep. Sheryl Delozier, Sen. Mike Regan, as well as other local elected officials, members of the Pennsylvania Military Enhancement Commission, Cumberland Area Economic Development Corporation and military leadership from Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, U.S. Army War College, Naval Support Activity Mechanicsburg and the 193rd Regional Support Group. Jamie Keener, chief executive officer of the Cumberland Area Economic Development Corporation, kicked off the event by welcoming everyone and asking everyone to introduce themselves. He commented that it was, “great to see such a large turn-out for the event and to see the military leadership from the local installations mingling with local elected officials.” Following introductions, the group dispersed to enjoy additional conversation while enjoying the scenic fall view of the Susquehanna River in the historic Susquehanna Club. Military leadership from the local area had the opportunity to talk with federal, state, county and local elected officials about their priorities for the current fiscal year as well as future plans for the installations.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

The undersigned officer of Veridien Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies
to my knowledge that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the on date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
shall not be deemed to be part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose
whatsoever.



Date: May 15, 2003                    Name: /s/ Sheldon C. Fenton
                                           ------------------------------------
                                                  Sheldon C. Fenton
                                           Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                                  Acting Chief Financial Officer
No. 10-5094.

#### Nafice Fields, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 903, 131 S. Ct. 240,

178 L. Ed. 2d 160,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6121.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 347 Fed. Appx. 782.
# DLA Troop Support celebrates civilian retirement after 35 years of service

/ Published May 3, 2022
PHILADELPHIA, 
The Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support celebrated the retirement of Dominic Palommello during a ceremony held April 27, in Philadelphia.

Palommello, a product services specialist with the Clothing and Textile supply chain, retired after 35 years of federal service. He was accompanied by his wife Josephine.

DLA Troop Support Executive Director William Kenny presided over the ceremony. He thanked Palommello for his hard work and dedication.

“The United States has been involved in many conflicts and humanitarian efforts in the past 35 years, and, Dominic, you can proudly say that you played an integral part in our warfighters’ and Nation’s successes. On behalf of myself, on behalf of (Troop Support Commander Army Brig. Gen. Eric Shirley) and the entire workforce, I wish you all the best in your retirement,” Kenny said.

Palommello began his career in 1987 as a packaging intern in Troop Support’s Pathways to Career Excellence program. He transitioned to a packaging specialist position, where his team was tasked to eliminate all plastics in Navy product packaging - an initiative to help preserve marine environments.

He then moved to Quality Assurance, later renamed Product Services, where he oversaw a variety of items including gloves, wet-weather products and items from the Marines’ martial arts program.

During the ceremony, Palommello was presented a certificate of retirement, DLA and Troop Support mementos, a commander’s coin and personal note from Shirley. Josephine was presented a commander’s spouse certificate of appreciation and a commander’s coin.

“I am very grateful for having the opportunity to work at DLA Troop Support,” Palommello said. “Please keep up the great work that you do, and stay focused on the men and women in uniform stationed all over the world sacrificing their lives to keep us safe and free. We owe them the best we can give them. I will miss my C&T family and keep you all in my prayers.”
#### Matter of N.P.-S., YINC

DA 16-0472

05/02/17

2017 MT 105N

Affirmed

Dist. 16 (Custer)
#### Wisler v. Manor Care of Lancaster PA, LLC

12/01/2015

762 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 124 A.3d 317
No. 10-5552.

#### Shane Michael Grogger, Petitioner v. Tennessee.

562 U.S. 928, 131 S. Ct. 317,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7146.

178 L. Ed. 2d 207,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Division, denied.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: ____2011______-NM-____150______-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. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
|                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                  
|View History:                                                                                   
|                                                                                                
|No chart available.                                                                             
|No chart available.                                                                             
|                                                                                                
|                                                                                                
|Price of Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Finland (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|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
# DLA Distribution Anniston “Pink Out” supports breast cancer awareness

/ Published Oct. 27, 2022
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
The Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, Anniston, Alabama, family came together for their fifth annual “Pink Out” Oct. 20 to support those affected by breast cancer and bring awareness to their community.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, which is an annual campaign to increase awareness of the disease.  While most people are aware of breast cancer, many forget, or don’t take the time to take the steps to have a plan to detect the disease in its early stages. This awareness campaign encourages people to be proactive and to inspire others to do the same.

Each year DDAA employees are asked to wear something pink to recognize the campaign and to increase breast cancer awareness. This event helps supporters of the cause to come together and continue to build awareness and encouragement for continued research.

“The Culture Committee here at DDAA has hosted this event every year. Each time, we ask employees to wear pink and commemorate the event with a group photo and it’s something the employees now look forward to every October,” said DDAA Commander, Army Lt. Col. Toby Williford.
2016-1722.

#### State v. James.

Hancock App. No. 5-16-14, 2016-Ohio-7262.

Fischer, J., dissents.
No. 09-11104.

#### Gregory Franklin, Petitioner v. L. E. Scribner, Warden.

562 U.S. 862, 131 S. Ct. 142,

178 L. Ed. 2d 85,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5870.

October 4, 2010.

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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2287 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2287

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify the assessment 
              and collection of the excise tax on arrows.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 14 (legislative day, July 11), 1994

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify the assessment 
              and collection of the excise tax on arrows.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SIMPLIFICATION OF IMPOSITION OF EXCISE TAX ON ARROWS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 4161 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to imposition of tax) is amended to read 
as follows:
    ``(b) Bows and Arrows, Etc.--
            ``(1) Bows.--
                    ``(A) In general.--There is hereby imposed on the 
                sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any 
                bow which has a draw weight of 10 pounds or more, a tax 
                equal to 11 percent of the price for which so sold.
                    ``(B) Parts and accessories.--There is hereby 
                imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or 
                importer--
                            ``(i) of any part or accessory suitable for 
                        inclusion in or attachment to a bow described 
                        in subparagraph (A), and
                            ``(ii) of any quiver suitable for use with 
                        arrows described in paragraph (2),
                a tax equivalent to 11 percent of the price for which 
                so sold.
            ``(2) Arrows.--There is hereby imposed on the sale by the 
        manufacturer, producer, or importer of any shaft, point, nock, 
        or vane of a type used in the manufacture of any arrow which 
        after its assembly--
                    ``(A) measures 18 inches overall or more in length, 
                or
                    ``(B) measures less than 18 inches overall in 
                length but is suitable for use with a bow described in 
                paragraph (1)(A),
        a tax equal to 11 percent of the price for which so sold.
            ``(3) Coordination with subsection (a).--No tax shall be 
        imposed under this subsection with respect to any article 
        taxable under subsection (a).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to articles sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
O pinion filed May 27, 2010



## In The



# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________



### No. 11

- 10

- 00 116

- C R

__________

CAROL JOHNENE MORRIS , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 441 st District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR

- 36894 /recusal

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to recuse. We dismiss for want of

jurisdiction.

When the clerk ’ s record was filed in this court on April 30, 2010, the clerk of this court

wrote the parties stating that the March 16, 2010 order did not appear to be an appealable order.

Morris was directed to respond to this court in writing on or before May 17, 2010, showing

grounds for conti nuing her appeal. There has been no response to our April 30 letter.

The March 16 order is not appealable at this time; therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

May 27, 2010

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed February 15, 2017 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-16-01310-CV
VERSACOM, LLC, Appellant V. NETICOM, LLC, LOC W. TRAN, TUAN A. NGO, AND HOAN BUI, Appellees
On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416-02676-2013



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justi ce Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Before the Court is the Februa ry 7, 2017 joint motion to dismi ss this appeal. The parties
have informed the Court that they have settle d all matters in controversy and they no longer
desire to pursue this appeal. Accordingly, we grant the mo tion and dismiss this appeal. See T EX

.
R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A).

161310F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

VERSACOM, LLC, Appellant

No. 05-16-01310-CV V.

NETICOM, LLC, LOC W. TRAN, TUAN A. NGO, AND HOAN BUI, Appellees On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416-02676-2013. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered February 15, 2017.
Certification Statement 

1, Jerry Reid, Assistant Attorney General, hereby certify that the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

demonstrations contained in the attached State Implementation (SIP) submittals have 

been adopted in accordance with all relevant requirements of the Maine Administrative 

Procedures Act and were lawfully adopted by the Board of Environmental Protection on 

April 3, 2008. 

y11 1l6 S' 

I 

` . Jerry Reid, A.A.G. Date
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-371-CR

MARK EDWIN HARDESTY APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1

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

Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court convicted Appellant Mark Edwin

Hardesty upon his plea of guilty to the offense of robbery and sentenced him

to twenty years’ confinement. The habitual paragraphs were waived.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

The trial court’s certification states that this is a plea-bargained case and

that Appellant has no right of appeal. Accordingly, we informed Appellant’s

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
counsel and Appellant by letter on October 30, 2009, that this appeal was

subject to dismissal unless Appellant or any party filed a response showing

grounds for continuing it on or before November 9, 2009.

2

In response, Appellant filed a “Motion to Amend the Notice of Appeal to

Correct Defects or Irregularities Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).” We grant

the motion in part and deny it in part and file the amended notice of appeal as

of the date we received it, November 6, 2009. We deny all other pending

motions.

The amended notice of appeal does not show grounds for continuing the

appeal. Because Appellant’s response to our inquiry does not present a valid

ground for continuing this appeal in light of the trial court’s certification that he

has no right of appeal, we dismiss this appeal.

3

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 17, 2009

2 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 25.2(d).

3 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

2
No. 09-10859.

#### Ahmad Moslimani, Petitioner v. Michigan.

562 U.S. 854, 131 S. Ct. 115,

178 L. Ed. 2d 70,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5962,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
|                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                                  
|                                                                                               
|No chart available.                                                                            
|No chart available.                                                                            
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|Price of Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Taiwan (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                               

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2020                                                                                                                              | W   |     | W   |     | W   |     |     |     |     | W   |     |    
|2021                                                                                                                              | W   |     |     |     | W   |     |     |     |     | 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
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

The State of Texas, Appellant

No. 06-13-00136-CR v.

David Colt Redus, Appellee

Appeal from the 6th District Court of 

Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 25051). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Carter and Justice Moseley

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, The State of Texas, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 27, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jason Keith Richardson, * From the 385th District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CV50227.

Vs. No. 11-15-00243-CR * October 22, 2015

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has considered Jason Keith Richardson’s pro se motion to 

withdraw his appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. 

Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Courtney B. Douglas, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 669]

— Mercure, J.P

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered May 17, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and was sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to 1 to 3 years in prison. The plea was entered into in satisfaction of a superior court information charging him with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, a crime which he committed while awaiting sentencing on another charge, the facts of which are more fully set forth in *People v Douglas*(2 AD3d 1050 [2003] [decided herewith]). Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive. We disagree. Defendant committed the crime in violation of the no-arrest condition of a prior plea bargain. Given these circumstances, as well as the fact that defendant agreed to the sentence challenged on this appeal as part of a plea bargain, we find no extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice *(see People v Samuel,*284 AD2d 654, 655 [2001]; *People v Hicks,*265 AD2d 600, 601 [1999]).

Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.