alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA Aviation recognizes 2022 September employees of the month

/ Published Jan. 10, 2023
Richmond, Va., 
Desiree Herron and Dustin Smith are Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Employees of the Month for September 2022.

Employee of the Month is awarded to DLA Aviation non-supervisory civilian employees. Two recipients are selected based on individual general schedule pay levels – one from GS 1-9 (Category 1) and one from GS 10-13 (Category 2). Recipients receive a coin, a certificate of achievement from the DLA Aviation deputy commander and a cash award.

Herron is a customer support specialist within DLA Aviation at Oklahoma City’s Strategic Acquisition Programs Directorate. She received the GS 1-9 Category 1 award.

Herron supports the 568th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron at Tinker Air Force Base in support of the KC-46 Pegasus aircraft programmed depot maintenance workload. Darryl Gary, chief, Aircraft Material Management Branch within the Strategic Acquisition Programs Directorate for DLA at Oklahoma City, and Herron’s nominator, said Herron achieved a 100 percent efficiency for her Aviation Process Excellence goals during the month of September.

“The most challenging aspect of my job is that since KC-46 is a new aircraft and has specific requirements, we are establishing the policies or steps on how to perform our tasks and troubleshoot any issues that develop, which at time can be overwhelming,” said Herron.

“Without my coworkers and colleagues in other departments, I know I would not be able to perform the duties required for this position. It has been and definitely is a team effort.” Herron said.

Dustin Smith, procurement analyst within DLA Aviation at Richmond’s Procurement Training Division, Procurement Process Support Directorate, received the GS 10-13 Category 2 award.

Smith recently took it upon himself to enhance foundational training, teaming up with peers and providing assistance to less seasoned instructors while volunteering to serve as a lead instructor.

Smith’s nominator, Sherry Mitchell, supervisory procurement analyst, Procurement Training Division within Procurement Process Support Directorate, said Smith’s ‘can-do’ attitude is indicative of a team player and he was received a great deal of positive feedback from training course attendees.

Smith said his personal goals are to continue to help new hires and the current workforce better understand what Procurement is responsible for, as well as to expand his own knowledge of procurement.
No. 09-11438.

#### Norman McIntosh, Petitioner v. Marcus Hardy, Warden.

562 U.S. 880, 131 S. Ct. 198,

178 L. Ed. 2d 120,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6496.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 21**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN DENTAL PARTNERS, INC.**

PDHC, Ltd., a Minnesota corporation 

American Dental Partners of Wisconsin, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Louisiana, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Pennsylvania, LLC, a Delawarelimited liability company 

Apple Park Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

American Dental Partners of Ohio, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

American Dental Partners of Arizona, LLC, a Delawarelimited liability company 

American Dental Professional Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Virginia, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Maryland, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Alabama, LLC, a Delaware limitedliability company 

American Dental Partners of Oklahoma, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of North Carolina, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of California, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

ADP of New York, LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany 

American Dental Partners of Tennessee, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

Voss Dental Lab, Inc., a New York corporation 

American Dental Partners of Michigan, LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany 

American Dental Partners of Missouri, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Minnesota, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

ADP-CFK, LLC, a Delaware limitedliability company 

Care for Kids – USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

Care for Kids of Arizona, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a Arizona’s Tooth Doctor for Kids 

EdgewaterIndemnity Company, a Vermont Corporation 

Metropolitan Dental Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

Metropolitan Dental Management, Inc., a Minnesota corporation 

AmericanDental Partners of Texas, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

CFK of Texas, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
No. 10-5245.

#### Hashona Clark, Petitioner v. Michelle R. Ricci, Associate Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

562 U.S. 911, 131 S. Ct. 265,

178 L. Ed. 2d 174,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7143.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-12-2005

In Re: Corliss

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-4394

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Corliss " (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 126.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/126
1

HPS-1 (November 2005) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 05-4394

________________

IN RE: JUSTIN M. CORLISS,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the

Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 03-cv-02201)

 _________________________________

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.

November 4, 2005

Before: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES.

 Filed: December 12, 2005 

_______________________

 OPINION

_______________________

PER CURIAM.

Pro se petitioner Justin M. Corliss seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to act on his motions

filed in his habeas corpus proceedings. Specifically, in May 2005, Corliss filed a motion

to reconsider the District Court’s April 26, 2005 order denying habeas relief, as well as a

motion seeking the District Judge’s recusal. Stating that the matters remained
unresolved, Corliss submitted a mandamus petition in September 2005.

Corliss’s motion for reconsideration and recusal motion were pending at

the time this mandamus petition was filed. However, on September 23, 2005, the District

Court denied both motions. Thus, the matter before us is now moot. To the extent that

Corliss seeks relief relating to the merits of the claims raised in his habeas petition,

mandamus is not an alternative to an appeal. In re Chambers Dev. Co., 148 F.3d 214, 223

(3d Cir. 1998) (“a writ of mandamus should not be issued where relief may be obtained

through an ordinary appeal”).

We note that Corliss refers to the mandamus action that he previously filed

in this Court, docketed at C.A. No. 05-1895, in which he sought to compel the District

Court to rule on his then-pending habeas petition. When that mandamus request became

moot upon the District Court’s denial of habeas relief, Corliss requested a refund of his

filing fee. We denied the refund request in our May 31, 2005 order. In his current

mandamus petition, Corliss again seeks reimbursement of the previously-paid filing fee. 

We again deny this request.

We will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
No. 10-106.

#### Jefferson A. McGee, Petitioner v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General of California.

562 U.S. 894, 131 S. Ct. 298,

178 L. Ed. 2d 143,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6217.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 09-11522.

#### Alexander M. Introcaso, Petitioner v. Patrick L. Meehan, et al.

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

178 L. Ed. 2d 129,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6990,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 338 Fed. Appx. 139.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         139,868
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               58,583,357
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (380,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         420,038
<DEPRECIATION>                                 303,720
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,832,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       48,623,088
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,209,114
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,832,202
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,096,577
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,080,866
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,433,497
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                582,214
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,695
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            563,519
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   563,519
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .323
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .322


</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT — APPELLATE DIVISION — FIRST DEPARTMENT.

June 6, 1924.

#### THE PEOPLE EX REL. GEORGE MOREHOUSE v. JOSEPH E. McCANN, WARDEN OF THE NEW YORK COUNTY PENITENTIARY.

(209 App. Div. 523.)

See headnote in People ex rel. Hannon v. Warden of Pen., 3ST. Y. Co. (ante, p. 377).

Appeal by the petitioner, George Morehouse, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 10th day of March, 1923, dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the petitioner to the custody of the New York County Penitentiary.

*Francis X. Dineen,*for .appellant.

*Joab H. Banton, District Attorney (Michael J. Driscoll, Deputy Assistant District Attorney,*of counsel), for the respondent.

Smith, J.:

The relator had been sentenced to the county penitentiary, had been paroled and was rcarrested by order of the Parole Commission to serve out the remainder of his sentence. No charges were served upon him and he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the Parole Commission.

For the reasons given in People ex rel. Hannon v. Warden *381of Pen., N. Y. Co. (209 App. Div. 521), decided herewith, the order should be affirmed.

Clarke, P. J., Dowling, McAvoy and Martin, JJ., concur.

Ordered affirmed.
No. 09-1270.

#### University of South Carolina, Petitioner v. University of Southern California.

562 U.S. 829, 131 S. Ct. 387,

178 L. Ed. 2d 26,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6303.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 129.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOHN DEROSA and A MAPLES INSURANCE AGENCY,

Appellants,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-4887

[October 14, 2015]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Financial Services;

Case No. 118486-11-AG.

John DeRosa, Pompano Beach, pro se.

James A. Bossart, Senior Attorney, Department of Financial Services, 

Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

John DeRosa and A Maples Insurance Agency (the “agency”) appeal 

from the Department of Financial Services’ (the “department”) final order 

revoking the agency’s license after an informal proceeding pursuant to 

section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. The department agrees that it 

should have conducted a formal hearing and confesses error. See Meller 

v. Florida Real Estate Comm’n, 902 So. 2d 325, 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) 

(“if it becomes apparent during the course of an informal hearing under 

section 120.57(2) that material facts are in dispute, a formal hearing 

should be convened”). Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and 

remand for a formal hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida 

Statutes.

Reversed and remanded.

CIKLIN, C.J., GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *
2

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lloyd S. Davis, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 659]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated May 18, 2016 *(People v Davis,*139 AD3d 966 [2016]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered April 24, 2014.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]).

Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Austin and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
EX 32.1  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 Annual Report of North American Gaming and Entertainment Corporation (the "Company") on Form  10-KSB  for the period ending December 31, 2008 has filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I,  Chen  Weidong,  Chief  Executive  Officer,  President  and Director  of  the  Company, certify, pursuant to 18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)     The  information  contained  in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition  and  result  of  operations  of the Company.   Name & Title                                    Date  /s/  Chen Weidong ----------------- Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer), President, and Director     April 16, 2010
1Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL

For the Fifth Circuit

 

No. 98-10324 

 

UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP INC., ET AL

Plaintiffs,

VERSUS

PENNZOIL COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

VERSUS

FORT WORTH STAR TELEGRAM, 

Movant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

 

Appeals from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:97-CV-509)

 

June 9, 1998

Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

On the facts of this case, even if the public has a right to

know the contents of the transcript of the closed hearing, that

right does not outweigh Pennzoil’s right to privacy of its
2

confidential business plan. Therefore, it was an abuse of

discretion for the district court not to make the additional

redactions asked for by Pennzoil. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court ordering the release of the redacted transcript is

vacated, the case is remanded to the district court with

instructions that it make the additional redactions to the

transcript requested by Pennzoil and then order the release of the

redacted transcript. 

JUDGMENT VACATED AND CASE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
No. 10-5344.

#### Vanessa Maria Quintero, Petitioner v. Matthew Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.

562 U.S. 916, 131 S. Ct. 394,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6910.

178 L. Ed. 2d 185,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# Photos: DSCC Police host National Night Out at Noon Sept. 21

/ Published Sept. 27, 2022
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
The Defense Supply Center Columbus Police Department hosted a National Night Out at Noon event on Sept. 21 at the Mission Park Pavilion with the goal of enhancing the relationship between the DSCC workforce and the police department while bringing back a true sense of community. More than 200 associates and several classes of children from the DSCC Child Development Center were in attendance. There were static displays, a bouncy house, arts and crafts and even a visit from McGruff the Crime Dog. The Whitehall Police Division brought one of its SWAT Command Vehicles for the DSCC community to learn a little bit about what they do and how they support the installation. The DSCC Police Department also served up a free lunch of hamburgers, hotdogs and snacks for all in attendance. Event planners were Officer Greg Adams, Deputy Chief Edward Compton and Police Chief Marco Schmigotzki.
#### James P., Matter of (Tiffany H.)

4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1526

denied*
#### People v Brown

4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1549 (Onondaga)

denied 3/6/17 (Stein, J.)
# DLA buys cloth face masks to protect DOD employees against coronavirus

/ Published April 27, 2020
PHILADELPHIA, 
The Defense Logistics Agency is proactively procuring cloth face masks to protect Defense Department employees against the coronavirus. The agency began working with American manufacturers to award contracts for reusable, non-surgical, cloth face masks in various styles soon after DOD released guidance requiring people to wear cloth masks on DOD property, installations and facilities in early April.

The largest contract makes 1 to 23 million masks available for purchase by DLA customers at less than $4 each, said Joseph Szwec, DLA Troop Support Clothing and Textiles acquisition manager for special purpose clothing. The contract is worth about $86 million and runs through Dec. 31.

An additional 554,000 masks will be available through other contracts designed to diversify the manufacturing base, Szwec added.

DLA is ordering the masks in cases of 1,000 to offer military customers a lower price than if masks were purchased individually.

“What we’re doing now is a proactive approach,” said Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment Division Chief Eboni Martin. “We usually get a requirement, then award a contract. However, the contracting team thought ‘outside of the box’ to develop real-world requirements to come up with a solution, prior to receiving requirements, so that we could support the community faster.”

The first 955,000 masks are scheduled to arrive at a C&T third-party logistics warehouse by the end of May with the first 60,000 arriving April 24 followed by increasing weekly shipments. From there, DLA will work with military leaders to prioritize distribution of the masks.

C&T’s coordination with vendors and customers, as well as internally, has been via telework due to widespread social distancing, said Jorge Valentin Torres, OCIE planning supervisor.

“It’s been very impressive, and very emotional to me – the extraordinary job everyone is doing to get this done, especially how quickly the acquisition team went out to industry to find an item, how the technical team placed the items [National Stock Numbers] right away, as well as planning and customer personnel getting products on FedMall [for customers to place orders],” she said.

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord also lauded DLA’s support providing face masks in a press conference April 20.

“We have ordered face coverings for the workforce – 3 million active duty, guard, reserve and government civilians – with deliveries starting this week,” Lord said. “I remain very proud of DLA, DCMA [Defense Contracting Management Agency], DTRA [Defense Threat Reduction Agency], the Joint Acquisition Task Force, and the entire department's efforts to support the whole-of-government and interagency battle against COVID-19.”