alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Alaska property disposal specialist honored

/ Published Nov. 3, 2022
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Capus Bryant wants the used property that comes through his warehouse doors to go right back out again.

“I enjoy serving my clients and helping all branches of the military,” said Bryant, the Alaska-based Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Employee of the Quarter for the final quarter of fiscal 2022. “I like ensuring that they receive property that they don’t have to spend their allocated funds on. I love seeing property go back out for more usage.”

Bryant has served with DLA Disposition Services for just over two years – all at its Anchorage site – as a property disposal specialist. In that short period, his efforts have earned him greater responsibilities, both as the newly designated facility manager and as the sole Reuse, Transfer and Donation program specialist for the largest state in the nation.

Bryant shipped 274 RTD line items and pulled, packaged, and shipped 216 items to be demilitarized in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2022, according to Alaska Area Manager Chris Milazzo. Additionally, he submitted 15 work orders and closed out seven aged work orders while wearing his facilities hat.

“During the 4th quarter, Capus singlehandedly claimed the number one category for our enterprise on his pick-to-ship metric, which is currently at 1.3 days,” Milazzo wrote. “These results are a direct reflection of his dedication to accomplishing tasks in an organized and structured method.”

Bryant developed an RTD plan of action that decreased customer wait times, cleared out all aged DEMIL property on the site, personally inspected all facility needs and addressed or updated all the old data, Milazzo said.

“Capus is always willing to face adversity, apply his critical thinking skills, and deliver impeccable results that consistently lead to overall team and mission success,” Milazzo wrote.

For his part, Bryant said that coming to work each day to serve with a great group of people was a pleasure.  

“I like that this agency is very family-oriented and truly cares about its employees,” Bryant said, also noting that he also appreciated DLA’s ‘room for growth’ and advancement opportunities. “‘All for one and one for all’ is an understatement. We are a family here [in Alaska].”
#### People v Dwight

1st Dept: 140 AD3d 466 (NY)

denied 8/24/16 (Pigott, J.)
---

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Mr. David Reeves Mineral Transport Solution (Pty) Ltd PO
Box 3987 Dainfern Johannesburg, South Africa

To:      US Securities and Exchange
Commission

Re:      Anooraq Resources Corporation
Form on 20F for the Fiscal year ended December 31, 2005

I, David Reeves, MAusIMM., hereby certify that I have read the
disclosure in connection with the Boikgantsho Joint Venture Property contained
in the subject 20F and hereby consent to the reference to myself as a named
expert in the written disclosure in the Form 20F of Anooraq Resources
Corporation.

Dated this 26 day of June, 2006.

---
2017-0195.

#### State v. Cochran.

Clark App. No. 2016-CA-33, 2017-Ohio-217.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 114 (Monday, June 15, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15763]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 914

[SPATS No. IN-128-FOR; Amendment No. 95-6]


Indiana Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 
Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal of proposed amendment.

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

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing the withdrawal of a proposed amendment to 
the Indiana regulatory program (hereinafter the ``Indiana program'') 
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). 
The amendment concerned revisions to the Indiana rules pertaining to 
identification of interests, compliance information, and permit 
conditions. Indiana is withdrawing the amendment at its own initiative.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew R. Gilmore, Director, Indianapolis Field Office, Telephone: 
(317) 226-6700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated February 18, 1997 
(Administrative Record No. IND-1555), the Indiana Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR) submitted a proposed amendment to its program pursuant 
to SMCRA. Indiana submitted the proposed amendment in response to a 
letter dated May 11, 1989 (Administrative Record No. IND-0644), that 
OSM sent to Indiana in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c), and at its own 
initiative. Indiana proposed to amend the provisions of the Indiana 
Administrative Code (IAC) concerning identification of interests, 
compliance information, and permit conditions for surface and 
underground coal mining.
    OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the March 13, 
1997, Federal Register (62 IAC 11807) and invited public comment on its 
adequacy. The public comment period ended April 14, 1997.
    By letter dated June 24, 1997 (Administrative Record No. IND-1576), 
OSM notified Indiana that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the district of 
Columbia Circuit invalidated the language of the Federal regulations 
upon which the proposed revisions were based. On May 21, 1998 
(Administrative Record No. IND-1610), Indiana requested that the 
proposed amendment be withdrawn. Indiana will submit a revised version 
of the amendment after OSM completes its revisions to the Federal 
regulations pertaining to ownership and control. Therefore, the 
proposed amendment announced in the March 13, 1997, Federal Register is 
withdrawn.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: June 5, 1998.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 98-15763 Filed 6-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           56617                   56617
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   955843                  955843
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     422310                  422310
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1619375                 1619375
<PP&E>                                          997150                  997150
<DEPRECIATION>                                  277113                  277113
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2762599                 2762599
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3030058                 3030058
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       1076473                 1076473
<OTHER-SE>                                   (1921679)               (1921679)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2762599                 2762599
<SALES>                                        2019235                  789451
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2019235                  789451
<CGS>                                          1269669                  596594
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1269669                  596594
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1491178                  929638
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (741622)                (736791)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (741622)                (736791)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (741622)                (736791)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.069)                  (.069)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.069)                  (.069)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 12.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth Fowler, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Zindart Limited;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material 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
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c) disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
      over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
      annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the company's internal control over financial
      reporting;

5. The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the company's internal control
      over financial reporting.

/s/ Kenneth Fowler
---------------------------
Kenneth Fowler
Chief Financial Officer

Date:  October 8, 2003
#### Crystal S. Golden, Respondent, v Harlem River of Manhattan et al., Appellants.

[50 NYS3d 567]

*699In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (King, J.), dated May 20, 2015, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injury to the lumbar region of the plaintiffs spine did not constitute a serious injury under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]), and that, in any event, the alleged injury was not caused by the subject accident *(see generally Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury to the lumbar region of her spine under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and as to whether the alleged injury was caused by the accident *(see Perl v Meher,*18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]; *Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d at 787).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Leventhal, J.P., Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Docket Number: FAA-2012-0589 

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 9/2/11 ----

Regional Airline Association Connie

Arnold

9/2/11 ----

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 9/2/11 ----

ATA Joe White 9/2/11 ----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alfredo Gonzalez, Appellant.

[65 NYS3d 451]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J. at suppression hearing; Ruth Pickholz, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered November 6, 2014, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, to a term of 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are *511unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record *(see People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]), and we reject defendant’s argument that the unexpanded record is sufficient to review these claims. Trial counsel presented a multifaceted defense, and, unlike such cases as *People v Logan*(263 AD2d 397 [1st Dept 1999]), the unexpanded record is insufficient to establish that counsel based her defense on a misunderstanding of the Penal Law definition of a “sale” of drugs. Likewise, the present record fails to establish the absence of legitimate strategic reasons for not seeking to reopen a suppression hearing *(see People v Gray,*27 NY3d 78 [2016]).

Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). Defendant has not shown that any of counsel’s alleged deficiencies fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, or that, viewed individually or collectively, they deprived defendant of a fair trial or affected the outcome of the case.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gesmer, Kern and Moulton, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2200 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 469
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2200

                          [Report No. 103-285]

  To authorize appropriations for the Federal Election Commission for 
                           fiscal year 1995.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 16 (legislative day, June 7), 1994

Mr. Ford, from the Committee on Rules and Administration, reported the 
    following original bill; which was read twice and placed on the 
                                calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize appropriations for the Federal Election Commission for 
                           fiscal year 1995.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FEDERAL ELECTION 
              COMMISSION.

    The second sentence of section 314 of the Federal Election Campaign 
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 439c) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' after ``1978,''; and
            (2) by inserting ``, and $31,793,000 for the fiscal year 
        ending September 30, 1995'' after ``1981''.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 469

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2200

                          [Report No. 103-285]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To authorize appropriations for the Federal Election Commission for 
                           fiscal year 1995.

_______________________________________________________________________

                June 16 (legislative day, June 7), 1994

                         Placed on the calendar
```
No. 09-11517.

#### Jose Alberto Acevedo-Guzman, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 885, 131 S. Ct. 213,

178 L. Ed. 2d 128,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7074.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
No. 09-1474.

#### James Dickey, Petitioner v. Inspectional Service Department of the City of Boston.

562 U.S. 836, 131 S. Ct. 150,

178 L. Ed. 2d 37,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6045.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
#### Consortium Consulting Group, Inc., Appellant, v Chee Tsai, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[768 NYS2d 213]

*178Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about March 24, 2003, which, in an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, granted defendant-respondent’s motion to vacate the default judgment entered against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion to vacate his default on the ground of excusable neglect was timely made within one year of service of the judgment (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Defendant satisfactorily explains that his failure to oppose plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and attend the ensuing proceedings was due to his lack of proficiency in English and an inability to retain counsel. We are also satisfied that plaintiff was not prejudiced by the four-month delay between the default and the making of the instant motion to vacate the default. Defendant’s claim that plaintiff was advised that the contract of sale was not to be executed until he had obtained necessary powers of attorney from his co-owners of the property shows a meritorious defense. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, Leonard R. Stein-Sapir, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Morgan’sFoods, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that: (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended August13, 2006, (the “Report”), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: September 27, 2006           /s/ Leonard R. Stein-Sapir   Leonard R. Stein-Sapir, Chairman of the Board and   Chief Executive Officer
2016-1701.

#### State ex rel. Ebersole v. Powell City Council.

In Mandamus. Reported at _ Ohio St.3d _, 2017-Ohio-509, _ N.E.3d _. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0003458 03-NOV-2014 11:24 AM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6834

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN LEE COBBS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-95-193)

Submitted: September 23, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Lee Cobbs, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Lee Cobbs appeals the district court’s order dismissing

without prejudice his motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742(a)(1) (2000). The district court properly construed this

action as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and

dismissed the motion because Cobbs did not obtain authorization

from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2000). We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and dismiss on

the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Cobbs,

No. CR-95-193 (E.D. Va. June 24, 2002). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter Habersharn, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 891]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), entered on or about May 5, 2016, which adjudicated defendant a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841 [2014]). The mitigating factors cited by defendant were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument, or did not otherwise support a departure. Defendant’s conduct and accomplishments while incarcerated were not so extraordinary as to warrant a departure, given the seriousness of the underlying offense against a 12-year-old child.

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Oing, JJ.
No. 09-10989.

#### Asa P. Johnson, Petitioner v. Elizabeth Burris, Acting Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 858, 131 S. Ct. 129,

178 L. Ed. 2d 78,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6111.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 339 Fed. Appx. 129.
exv4w1



 





Exhibit 4.1




	 	 	 
	

	 	Co. No. : 189457
Date : November 19, 2004







The Board of Directors,

DF China Technology Inc.

Units 3207-08, 32/F

West Tower, Shun Tak Centre

168-200 Connaught Road

Central

Hong Kong



Dear Sirs,



     Re: Resignation of Directorship and Chief Financial Officer



     I hereby tender my resignation as a Director and Chief Financial Officer
of your Company effective hereof.

	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Yours faithfully,

 	 
	 	/s/ Zhu Xiaojun
 	 
	 	Zhu Xiaojun