alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Air Force awards ceremony held on DSCR

/ Published June 11, 2021
RICHOND, Va, 
The Air Force Customer Facing Division within Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Customer Operations Directorate recently held an official ceremony recognizing a few folks for their outstanding work.

DLA Aviation Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. David Sanford presided over the event, which took place in the Frank B. Lotts Conference Center on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, June 3.

Sanford awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal to Air Force Col. John Gustafson for his outstanding contributions and leadership while serving as the Air Force Customer Facing Division chief.

Sanford also presented the DMSM to Air Force Capt. Lisa McCarthy, a logistics career broadening officer within Gustafson’s division. The award stated that from June 2019 to June 2021, McCarthy’s leadership was key in overhauling the Career Broadening Program where she rewrote the curriculum and introduced business analytics objectives for broadeners. 

Air Force Tech. Sgt. Christopher Farris, also a career broadener within Gustafson’s division, was presented with the Joint Service Commendation Medal for his work while deployed to Kuwait as part of the DLA Support Team September 2020 – March 2021.

Farris was also recognized for being named DLA’s 2021 Non-Commissioned Officer for the first quarter of Fiscal 2021.
----

----

|   | (1) | the Report 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  November 27, 2013 |
|------------------------------------|

|   |  /s/ Doron MosheDoron MosheChief Financial Officer |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
Exhibit 32.1

 

**                                                THE MONARCH CEMENT COMPANY                                                   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 Quarterly Report of The Monarch Cement Company (the"Company") onForm 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31,2008, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the datehereof(the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the dateindicatedbelow, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuanttoSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to The MonarchCement Company and will be retained by The MonarchCement Company and furnishedto the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

Dated:  May 9, 2008

|   |   |  /s/ Walter H. Wulf, Jr.                 Walter H. Wulf, Jr.    President and     Chairman of the Board 
                                                   

 

 

  |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# College recruiting fairs attract potential future workforce  

/ Published Sept. 30, 2022
RICHMOND, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Procurement Process Support Directorate’s Training Branch actively partners with colleges and universities in the Richmond, Virginia area to recruit students to participate in the DLA Pathways to Career Excellence (PaCE) Program.

PaCE trains entry-level employees for advancement in supply, technical quality, procurement and finance fields through on-the-job work assignments, cross-training, rotational assignments and formal instruction.

For the first time since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic back in 2020, the DLA Aviation employees in Richmond responsible for bringing in and training college students through PaCE, were able to visit several local universities and attend in-person recruiting fairs. 

Thanks to the hard work of Senior Procurement Analyst Jennifer Deskins, DLA had a presence at Virginia Commonwealth University’s School of Business in Richmond, Virginia’s Business Internship and Career Fair Sept. 20, and Virginia State University in Petersburg, Virginia’s Business and Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) Career Expo Sept. 21.

During both events, a steady stream of students stopped by the DLA Aviation booth to learn more about possible career opportunities within the agency through PaCE.

Natarsha Goode, chief of the Procurement Process Support Directorate’s Training Branch, said recruiting new talent is an essential factor for any organization to promote growth, future leaders and help sustain a diversified workforce.

“We’ve been casting our net wide and getting the word out about the great employment opportunities at DLA.” She said. “While these were the first in-person college career fairs we’ve attended in several years, we intend to make this a regular tradition to attract great talent.”
# DLA COVID-19 Task Force member wins Navy League logistics award

/ Published June 7, 2022
Fort Belvoir, Va., 
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Hugh Wilson is the winner of the Navy League’s Admiral Ben Moreell Award for Logistics Competence for his work with the Defense Logistics Agency’s COVID-19 Task Force.

He will receive the award during the Navy League’s National Convention June 8-12 in Orlando, Florida.

Wilson was called to active duty from the DLA Joint Reserve Force in May 2018. He first worked as a current operations branch chief for the Agency Synchronization and Operations Center before being assigned to the COVID-19 Task Force. He later transitioned to a civilian role with the agency as a joint logistics planner in the ASOC.

The Navy League gives the Admiral Ben Moreell Award for Logistics Competence annually to one enlisted member and one officer in the Navy or Marine Corps who helps advance logistics readiness and competence.

Lee Dvonch, who led the DLA COVID-19 Task Force from March 2020 to June 2021, nominated Wilson for his work in developing the Defense Department’s COVID-19 Vaccine Common Operating Picture.

Dvonch said he’s thrilled that Wilson’s leadership and innovation are being recognized.

“DLA started tracking COVID-19 vaccine shipments with the same clunky, manual spreadsheets and PowerPoints that are essentially unchanged from 20 years ago, and that resulted in a lot of challenges with data timeliness and visibility across DOD,” Dvonch said.

Wilson led the development of a real-time, automated information platform that stored data in one location so shipments could be tracked, allowing military and federal planners and customers to see relevant information, Dvonch said.

“Information was always a big challenge,” Wilson said. “DLA collects a lot of information in a lot of different logistics systems. But pulling that all together into one common-sight picture was really challenging, especially when what information senior leaders needed in that sight picture changed as the mission and the requirements changed.”

Wilson said the 80 members of the task force and the 40 additional representatives throughout the agency are all responsible for its success, particularly because of their flexibility. 

“The whole team was really good at shifting on the fly as things changed,” Wilson said. “The flexibility of everybody who was assigned and the willingness of folks to work outside of their normal comfort zones helped. It was great to work so closely with such a great group of people on a mission that mattered so much.”

He said this work will go down as a personal career highlight.

“There's probably been times in my career where I’ve thought, ‘Why are we doing this? What's the mission impact here?’” he said. “But we could really see, as members of the task force, the impact every day because we were helping to support vaccines get delivered to DOD personnel who were spread throughout the globe. We could see the personal protective equipment was getting into the hands of the people who needed it. So it really was rewarding from that perspective, from a mission impact perspective.”
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

JAMES ERIC GRANT, §

Appellant §

§ CAUSE NO. 03- 15 -00473- CR

V. § TRIAL COURT NO. 69,168

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS, §

Appellee §

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES Tim Copeland, PO Box 399, Cedar Park, Texas 78613,

appellate attorney for James Eric Grant, and respectfully moves this Honorable

Court to allow said attorney to withdraw as attorney of record in this matter,

terminating his representation of the above referenced appellant and for good

cause would respectfully show this Honorable Court as follows:

I.

Contemporaneous with the filing of this Motion to Withdraw, counsel has

filed an Anders brief. Withdrawal of counsel is necessary to permit Mr. Grant to

file a pro se response brief, if he so desires. ACCEPTED

03-15-00473-CR

6612953

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

8/24/2015 8:21:09 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKII.

Pending Deadlines

Appellant’s brief is due September 11 , 2015

.

III.

Documents Filed and Prepared for Defendant

Counsel has prepared a docketing statement and Appellant’s Brief in this

cause, and has filed same with this Court. Counsel previously prepared

Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, Request for Reporter’s Record and Designations of

Clerk’s Record.

IV.

Notice of Last Known Address of Defendant

Counsel has notified Appellant of the filing of this Motion to Withdraw and

of the filing of this brief by mailing a copy of this Motion to Appellant’s last

known mailing address by regular, first class mail and by certified mail, return

receipt requested, and addressed as follows:

James Eric Grant

TDCJ No. 01936588

Darrington Unit

59 Darrington Road

Rosharon, TX 77583

V.

WHEREFORE

, Movant prays this Honorable Court to allow Movant to

withdraw from the representation of appellant and would, in all things, relieveMovant herein, discharging Movant from her obligations and responsibilities to

this Defendant in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

COPELAND LAW FIRM

P.O. Box 399

Cedar Park, TX 78613

Pho: 512.897.8126

Fax: 512.215.8114

Email: tcopeland14@yahoo.com

/s/ Tim Copeland

T im Copeland

State Bar No. 04801500

Attorney for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND OF

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9

This is to certify that on August 24

, 2015, a true and correct copy of the

above and foregoing document was served on Bob Odom , Assistant District

Attorney of Bell County, P.O. Box 540, Belton, Texas 76513 and on James Eric

Grant, TDCJ No. 01936588, Darrington Unit, 59 Darrington Rd., Rosharon, TX 77583 in

accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

, and that Appellant’s

brief is in compliance w ith Rule 9 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and

that portion which must be included under Rule 9.4(i)(1) contains 462 words.

Further, Counsel certifies that h e has complied with the dictates of Kelly v.

State insofar as providing a motion for Mr. Grant to gain access to his appellate

records if he so chooses

.

/s/ Tim Copeland

Tim Copeland
Appeal Dismissed and Opinion Filed December 19, 2014.

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 14

- 00455

- CR

CHLOE A. M ENAGER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14

- 00143

- X



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justi ces Francis, Evans, and Stoddart

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s counsel has approved the

motion. Th e Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS th at th e appeal be DISMISSED and

t his decision be certified below for observance. S ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47

140455F.U05

## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

CHLOE A. MENAGER, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 00455

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal fro m the Criminal District Court

No. 6, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14

- 00143

- X.

Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices

Francis, Evans, and Stoddart.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered t his 19th day of December, 2014.
No. 09-11521.

#### Wayne Allen Biggins, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 885, 131 S. Ct. 214,

178 L. Ed. 2d 129,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6937.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 908.
#### North40RE Realty LLC, Respondent, v Dexter Bishop, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 193]

Spain, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Hummel, J.), entered February 26, 2003, which reversed a judgment of the City Court of the City of Troy rendered in favor of defendant.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial small claims action in the City Court of the City of Troy seeking to recover real estate commissions due under an exclusive brokerage agreement between plaintiff and defendant. Following a hearing, City Court ruled in favor of defendant and dismissed the action. On plaintiffs appeal, County Court reversed and awarded $2,475 to plaintiff. Defendant appeals and we affirm.

It is undisputed that, while obligated under a written exclusive real estate brokerage agreement with plaintiff, defendant purchased property in the Town of Brunswick, Rensselaer County. In clear and unqualified terms, the brokerage agreement provides that, under such circumstances, defendant would pay plaintiff 2.5% of the purchase price. Although defendant demonstrated that plaintiff did not represent him in the purchase of the property, his obligation to pay the commission on any property purchased during the relevant time period is, under the terms of the brokerage agreement, in no way conditioned upon plaintiffs efforts or participation in bringing about the sale. Moreover, inasmuch as defendant refused to allow plaintiff any involvement in the purchase negotiations (because the seller refused to deal with realtors), it cannot be said that plaintiffs failure to participate in the purchase was a breach of its duties under the brokerage agreement.

Although appellate review of small claims judgments is limited to determining whether “substantial justice has . . . been done *1185between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (UJCA 1807), reversal is appropriate where there has been a deviation from substantive law which renders the determination clearly erroneous *(see Rothermel v Ermiger,*161 AD2d 1016, 1016-1017 [1990]). Here, County Court correctly concluded that, under principles of basic contract law, plaintiff is entitled to the commission under the clear, unambiguous terms of the exclusive brokerage agreement *(see Elletson v Bonded Insulation Co.,*272 AD2d 825, 826 [2000]) and, thus, City Court’s decision to the contrary required reversal *(see Rothermel v Ermiger, supra*at 1017; *Lockwood v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*112 AD2d 495, 496-497 [1985]; *Manupella v Marine Midland Bank,*89 AD2d 641 [1982]; *cf. Moses v Randolph,*236 AD2d 706, 707 [1997]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 08-2533

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

CALVIN SEBASTIAN,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on July 16, 2010, is

amended as follows:

On page 6, line 3, replace "is" with "are"

One page 6, line 4, place "that it was not" with "they were

not"
NO. 07-06-0349-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 19, 2006

______________________________

ALEX M. FLORES, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2005-409540; HONORABLE BRADLEY S. UNDERWOOD, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Appellant, Alex Martinez Flores, appeals his conviction for possession of a

controlled substance (cocaine) in an amount less than 200 grams but at least four grams

and sentence of 30 years incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice. For the reasons stated herein, we abate and remand.

After a careful examination of the clerk’s record, we are unable to determine the

date sentence was imposed in open court. The judgment indicates that sentence was

imposed on June 15, 2006 and on August 24, 2006. Because the date sentence is
2

imposed in open court is essential in determining the time in which an appeal may be

perfected, see TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2, we now abate and remand the cause to the trial court

for a determination of the appropriate sentencing date. We direct the trial court clerk to

forward a corrected order which consistently reflects the date sentence was imposed in

open court to the Clerk of this Court in a supplemental clerk’s record by Tuesday,

November 14, 2006.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

October 10, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00207-CV

IN RE SURINDER SINGH, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-59451

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 29, 2023, relator Surinder Singh filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Robert

Schaffer, presiding judge of the 152nd District Court of Harris County, to vacate his 

March 29, 2023 order granting real party in interest’s request for emergency 

temporary relief. 
2

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We lift our April 4, 

2023 stay. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain.
#### Gudalefsky v. Hatch

04/06/2016

958 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 496
2011-0803.

#### Akron Bar Assn. v. Carr.

Sua sponte, Jeffrey Alan Carr, Attorney Registration No. 0081745, last known business address in Bath, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before April 15, 2013.
No. 10-5562.

#### James William Brown, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 929, 131 S. Ct. 318,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7319.

178 L. Ed. 2d 208,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 370 Fed. Appx. 18.
#### J.R., In re; D.S.G., In re 37

03/29/2016

113 MAL (2016)

37

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

No. 1158 MDA 2015
No. 10M28.

#### 1568 Montgomery Highway, Inc., Petitioner v. City of Hoover, Alabama.

562 U.S. 819, 131 S. Ct. 377,

178 L. Ed. 2d 13,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6373.

October 4, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 6, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 04-14116

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 04-00020-CR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CORY LAMONT CARROLL,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Georgia

_________________________

 (June 6, 2005)

Before TJOFLAT, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the court sentenced him to prison for a

term of 70 months. He now appeals his sentence, contending that Blakely v.
2

Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), and the Sixth Amendment

precluded the district court from enhancing his offense level based on a fact that

he did not admit as true. In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738,

(2005), the Supreme Court made Blakely’s rationale applicable to the Sentencing

Guidelines. 

The presentence report (PSI) set appellant’s base offense level at 20

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4), and, based on information provided by the

ATF—that the firearm appellant possessed had been stolen—the report added two

points to the base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4). Citing

Blakely, appellant objected to this upward adjustment on the ground that he had

not admitted, and would not admit, that the firearm was stolen. The ADDENDUM

to the PSI noted the objection. Appellant repeated his Blakely objection at the

sentencing hearing, Record, Vol. 2 at 2, and the court noted that he had

“preserved [the objection] for appeal.” Id. At 3. 

United States v. Davis, 2005 WL 1033422 (11 Cir. (Ga.)), teaches that “we th

[must] reverse [the defendant’s sentence] and remand [the case for resentencing]

unless the Government can demonstrate that the error was harmless beyond a

reasonable doubt . . . that the error complained of did not contribute to the

sentence.” Id. In this case, the Guidelines sentence range–-including the
3

challenged two-level upward adjustment—called for a term of imprisonment of 63

to 78 months; appellant’s sentence falls one month below the midpoint of this

range. The sentencing transcript informs us that the Blakely/Booker error did not

contribute to the sentence in this case. After taking appellant’s considerable

criminal history into account, the court stated: “I have imposed the sentence

because I do believe, under all the facts and the history, this whole situation, that

this meets the sentence objective of punishment, deterrence and incapacitation.” 

Record, Vol. 2 at 12. Although the court did not cite 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), its

sentence reflected the sentencing purposes § 3553(a)(2) sets forth, i.e., the very

sentencing purposes the court would have to consider anew if we vacated

appellant’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. 

AFFIRMED.