alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA Installation Management fire captain wins DOD award

/ Published May 11, 2022
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
One of the Defense Logistics Agency’s bravest is being recognized by the Defense Department.

                220510-D-D0441-1003                            Debris is scattered in an urban search-and-rescue scene during an exercise organized by Capt. John Fogg III with DLA Installation Management Susquehanna Fire and Emergency Services.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: CourtesyVIRIN: 220510-D-D0441-1003Capt. John Fogg III with DLA Installation Management Susquehanna Fire and Emergency Services is the 2021 DOD Fire and Emergency Services Fire Service Instructor of the Year.

Fogg organized a 24-hour disaster preparedness exercise that tested the assets as well as the physical and mental strength of the region’s urban search-and-rescue firefighters.

                220510-D-D0441-1001                            A firefighter scales down a wall during an urban search-and-rescue exercise organized by Capt. John Fogg III with DLA Installation Management Susquehanna Fire and Emergency Services. Fogg is the 2021 DOD Fire and Emergency Services Fire Service Instructor of the Year.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: CourtesyVIRIN: 220510-D-D0441-1001The exercise simulated, “what would be our worst day of our careers, whether it was man-made and terroristic or a natural disaster like a tornado,” Fogg said. 

“It has been extremely humbling to be awarded the DOD Fire Instructor of the Year,” Fogg said, adding that many of his colleagues, co-workers and supervisors from throughout his career have reached out to congratulate him. 

Fogg also coordinated the contract for an on-site trench rescue course for which he developed the materials list, directed support crews and added eight new certified rescue technicians. 

“I love instructing fire classes because I have a passion for the fire service, and every time I teach a class, it also helps me refine my own skills while also learning from people in the class,” Fogg said.

Outside of DLA, Fogg trains local and regional community firefighters. He deployed in 2021 with Pennsylvania Task Force One to provide urban search-and-rescue support for Hurricane Ida. Later that year, he responded – on his day off – to a building fire in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, where people were trapped inside.

“This is the first time in several years DLA has won at the DOD level, demonstrating the very high level of competition across all of DOD,” said Robert Montefour, DLA Installation Management’s Susquehanna site director.
163 A.3d 278

#### IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH D. LENTO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 013252008)

June 20, 2017

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented, it is ORDERED that JOSEPH D. LENTO of NARBERTH, PENNSYLVANIA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2008, and who was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year retroactive to July 17, 2013, by Order of this Court filed April 26, 2017, be restored to the practice of law, effective immediately.
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 492 

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No. CR-16-175

WESLEY GENE HOLLAND

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered: October 26, 2016

APPEAL FROM THE CLEVELAND

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. 13CR-2014-48-5]

HONORABLE DAVID W. TALLEY, 

JR., JUDGE

SUPPLEMENTAL 

ADDENDUM ORDERED

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

Wesley Gene Holland appeals his convictions of second-degree sexual assault and 

residential burglary. On appeal, Holland argues that the circuit court erred in denying his 

directed-verdict motions. We cannot address the merits of Holland’s appeal because 

Holland’s addendum fails to comply with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2 (2015). 

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires an appellant’s brief to include an 

addendum consisting of all documents essential to this court’s resolution of the issues on 

appeal, including exhibits such as CDs and DVDs. Holland’s addendum does not comply 

with this rule. At trial, the State introduced and played audio recordings of two different 

interviews between Holland and the police. Holland, however, failed to include copies of 

the audio recordings in his addendum as required by our rules. Because Holland’s addendum 

is inadequate, we order him to file a supplemental addendum within seven days of this 
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 492 

2 

opinion. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). We encourage counsel to review our rules, as well 

as the record and addendum, to ensure that no other deficiencies are present. 

Supplemental addendum ordered. 

GLADWIN, C.J., and WHITEAKER, J., agree. 

N. Mark Klappenbach, for appellant. 

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Kathryn Henry, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Dan W.Denney, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of GenitopeCorporation; and2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.Date: April 29, 2008      /s/Dan W. Denney, Jr.    Dan W. Denney, Jr.   *Chief Executive Officer*
EXHIBIT 31.2
RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002
I, Sheldon C. Fenton certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Veridien Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth physical quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 31, 2005     /s/ Sheldon C. Fenton   Sheldon C. Fenton Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
27
No. 10-5510.

#### Joe W. King, Petitioner v. J. A. Keller, Warden.

562 U.S. 926, 131 S. Ct. 311,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7457.

178 L. Ed. 2d 202,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 70.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 114 (Monday, June 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15791]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-577-000]


Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc.; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

June 9, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 29, 1998, Williams Gas Pipelines Central, 
Inc. (Williams), P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, filed in Docket 
No. CP98-577-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.212 of 
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.212) for authorization to utilize measuring and appurtenant 
facilities installed in Jackson County, Missouri, pursuant to NGPA 
Section 311 authority, to deliver transportation gas to Missouri Gas 
Energy (MGE) at Kentucky Avenue for purposes other than NGPA Section 
311 transportation, under Williams's blanket authorization issued in 
Docket No. CP82-479-000 pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 
all as more fully set forth in the request that is on file with the 
Commission and open to public inspection.
    Williams states that the projected annual volume of delivery is 
estimated to be approximately 28,105,000 Dth with a peak day volume of 
77,000 Dth. The project cost was approximately $343,063 which was paid 
from funds on hand.
    Williams states that the delivery point is not prohibited by its 
existing tariff and that it has sufficient capacity to accomplish 
deliveries without detriment or disadvantage to other customers. The 
proposed delivery point will not have an effect on FGT's peak day and 
annual deliveries and the total volumes delivered will not exceed total 
volumes authorized prior to this request.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15791 Filed 6-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Crociata, Matter of, v Cassano

2d Dept: 140 AD3d 751

denied
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              14
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      188
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (7)
<INVENTORY>                                        283
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   528
<PP&E>                                             487
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (181)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,549
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              355
<BONDS>                                          1,024
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         141
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,549
<SALES>                                          2,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,144
<CGS>                                            1,140
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,140
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    203
<INCOME-TAX>                                       100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                103
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       103
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.36


</TABLE>
No. 10-5340.

#### Jeffrey Shane Pereira, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 916, 131 S. Ct. 279,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6919.

178 L. Ed. 2d 184,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, denied.

Same case below, 31 So. 3d 791.
S91A1199.

#### AUSTIN v. THE STATE.

(408 SE2d 105)

Hunt, Justice.

Eric Eugene Austin was convicted of felony murder and armed robbery for his part in the bludgeoning death and armed robbery of Austell pawnshop owner, Robert Blaudo. When the jury could not agree on a verdict on the malice murder count, the trial court declared a mistrial on that count and sentenced the defendant to life in prison on the other counts.1 He appeals, raising the sufficiency of the *551evidence and contending the trial court failed to properly charge the jury that the defendant could only be convicted on one count of murder. We affirm.

Decided September 12, 1991.

*John R. Greco,*for appellant.

*Thomas J. Charron, District Attorney, William M. Clark, Debra H. Bernes, Nancy I. Jordan, Assistant District Attorneys, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary H. Hines,*for appellee.

After the body of the pawnshop owner was discovered by a customer, a tipster informed the police that Ronald Couch and the defendant had committed the crime. The defendant was arrested, and admitted in a taped statement that while he had participated in the armed robbery, he was shocked when Couch killed the victim.

1. As a party to the crime of armed robbery, OCGA § 16-2-20, the defendant was liable for the consequences of his crime, including the death of the victim. *Lobdell v. State,*256 Ga. 769, 773 (353 SE2d 799) (1987). Furthermore, the jury was properly charged on the relevant principles of law. Having reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s determination, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); *Crawford v. State,*245 Ga. 89, 90 (263 SE2d 131) (1980).

2. The trial court did not err in failing specifically to charge the jury that the defendant could only be convicted of one count of murder, so long as a single sentence is imposed. *Smith v. State,*258 Ga. 181, 183 (366 SE2d 763) (1988). The jury did not reach a verdict on the malice murder count, upon which a mistrial was declared, and the trial court sentenced the defendant on the felony murder charge, for which the jury found him guilty. We find no error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The crimes were committed on February 21, 1989. The defendant was indicted on August 4, 1989; his trial commenced on December 3, 1990, and he was convicted of felony murder and armed robbery on December 12. He filed his motion for new trial on January 9, 1991, which was amended on March 26. The trial court vacated the life sentence for armed robbery on April 16, 1991, but otherwise denied his motion. The court reporter certified the transcript *551on February 21, 1991. His notice of appeal was filed on April 25, 1991. The case was docketed here on June 6, and submitted for decision on July 19, 1991.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000


<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                         OCT-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                       9,967
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              129,583
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                214,998
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           364,295
<PP&E>                                     216,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             875,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      206,877
<BONDS>                                    459,223
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,907
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               875,408
<SALES>                                    557,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           557,733
<CGS>                                      453,154
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              453,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            95,747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          35,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (23,782)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,716
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (28,498)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (28,498)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0



</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 5, 2016

p0928 

# Order

Clerk October 5, 2016

152886

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152886

COA: 329343

Kent CC: 13

- 011957

- FC

DREW EVERTT GARNER

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 23, 2015

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, b ecause the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
No. 09-11385.

#### Rafael Aleman Martinez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 877, 131 S. Ct. 189,

178 L. Ed. 2d 113,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6925.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 708.
EXHIBIT 31.2RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002I, Russell Van Zandt certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Veridien Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth physical quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and      b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 14, 2005         /s/ Russell Van Zandt           Russell Van Zandt      Chief Financial Officer  
22
**EXHIBIT 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consentto the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-105819, No.333-107143, and No. 333-136123 on form S-8 of our report dated March 28, 2007, relating to the financial statements andfinancial statement schedules of Core Molding Technologies, Inc. andsubsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion andincludes an explanatory paragraph that, as discussed in Note 9to the consolidated financial statements, effective January 1,2006, the Company changed the manner in which it accounts forshare-based compensation; in addition, as discussed in Note 11,the Company changed the manner in which it records the funded statusof its postretirement health and life insurance benefits planeffective December 31, 2006), appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Core Molding Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP