alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA contracted fuel barge rescues two women in Pensacola Bay

/ Published April 29, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Va. , 
A Defense Logistics Agency Energy contracted fuel barge tow rescued two female jet skiers who were found exhausted, cold and terrified after being adrift in the water for several hours in the Pensacola Bay April 25.

The motor vessel Rhonda Lamulle was sailing from Hurlburt Field to Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida, to unload fuel when about 9 p.m. the captain of the towboat, Capt. Richard “Ricky” Boudreaux, noticed a small unmanned watercraft crossing the boat’s bow from the starboard side. The tug notified the U.S. Coast Guard and then got back underway once rescue boats arrived. An hour later, crewmember Jesse Hansford was checking the tow and thought he heard something.

“He asked me to shine the spotlight toward the starboard side of tow, because he thought he heard something,” Boudreaux said. “I slowed the engines, moved the spotlight and we spotted two individuals floating approximately 75 to 100 feet off our starboard side.”

The captain radioed the Coast Guard and a police patrol boat operating nearby while crewmembers Hansford and Derrick Jones used the skiff to rescue both survivors.

“My crew got them on board and brought to safety,” Boudreaux said. “They had every variable stacked against them. They were in dark water at night with noise of engines running.”

DLA Energy Americas East Supplier Operations Chief Gabe Tarango oversees the barge’s contract and said the tug found the women near the bridge coming into Pensacola. 

“They were near an outlet of the intracoastal waterway during an outgoing tide and could have very easily ended up in the Gulf if the alert crew of the Rhonda Lamulle hadn’t come upon them,” Tarango said.

The Rhonda Lamulle, operated by JAR Assets, is part of a U.S. Transportation Command barge contract funded by DLA Energy. The contract covers the transportation of Department of Defense-owned bulk jet fuel by tug and barge between suppliers in Houston, Louisiana and Alabama and Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, Tyndall Air Force Base, Eglin Air Force Base, Hurlburt Field and Naval Air Station Pensacola.

“We have a long-standing relationship with JAR,” Tarango said.

Boudreaux said he is very proud of his crew. 

“Their calmness and alertness came together to let these young ladies go home to their families,” he said. “This was the perfect ‘needle in a haystack’ rescue.”   

Dennis A. Pasentine, owner and chief executive officer of JAR Assets and its affiliated Florida Marine family, said that everyone in the Florida Marine Group is very proud of Capt. Ricky Boudreaux and the crew of the M/V Rhonda Lamulle. He noted that this was the third water rescue by Capt. Ricky Boudreaux during his employment with the Florida Marine Group.
#### Petsinger v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Labor Law Compliance 70

07/27/2016

201 MAL (2016)

70

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

Denied

No. 1842 CD 2015
No. 10M4.

#### David J. Beatty, Petitioner v. Deborah Kerivan.

562 U.S. 819, 131 S. Ct. 373,

178 L. Ed. 2d 10,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6245.

October 4, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vincent Ziegler, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 517]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered January 14, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of controlled substance in the third degree and criminal facilitation in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, to an aggregate term of six years, with IV2 years of postrelease supervision, unanimously reversed, on the law, the plea vacated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Although the court warned defendant that the enhanced sentence he would, and did, receive, upon his violation of the plea conditions would include a term of postrelease supervision, the court did not specify the length of that term. This entitles defendant to vacatur of the plea *(see People v McAlpin,*17 NY3d 936 [2011]). The People’s argument regarding preservation is unavailing. The prosecutor’s recommendation of a specific term of PRS at certain court appearances, and immediately before sentencing, “was not the type of notice under *People v Murray*(15 NY3d 725 [2010]) that would require defendant to preserve the issue” *(People v Singletary,*118 AD3d 610, 611 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
# New DLA Energy deputy commander announced

/ Published June 3, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, 
In an email to senior leaders, Defense Logistics Agency Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic announced the selection of David Kless to serve as the DLA Energy Deputy Commander.  

Since February 2018, Kless has served as the Executive Director, Operations and Sustainment, DLA Logistics Operations (J-3), responsible for the oversight, management, and control of enterprise combat logistics support mission readiness.  

“Mr. Kless is well-suited for this new role, with over 30 years of military and Federal service,” Skubic said in her announcement. “His expertise encompasses extensive planning and executing responses to humanitarian and contingency operations.”

In his current role, Kless serves as the principal liaison and advisor to the DLA Director, the Joint Chiefs of Staff J-4, Combatant Commanders, and the Military Service Departments regarding all aspects of logistics planning in support of the Joint/Unified Commanders' and Military Service's war planning and contingency/routine execution efforts. Prior to this position, he served as the DLA Deputy Chief of Staff and Division Chief, Whole of Government Support.

He is a retired Navy Supply Corps Captain who’s held a variety of leadership positions within the Navy logistics and acquisition communities throughout his 24-year military career.

“Mr. Kless brings decades of logistics and leadership experience in and out of uniform, and we are excited to have him join us from the J3,” said DLA Energy Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Jimmy Canlas.

Kless said he is excited for the opportunity and looking forward to work with the outstanding Energy team. He is expected to join the staff in mid-July relieving Patricia Wilkins who has been acting deputy commander since May.
No. 09-11573.

#### Larry Darnell Roberts, Petitioner v. Maryland.

562 U.S. 888, 131 S. Ct. 223,

178 L. Ed. 2d 134,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7025.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.

Same case below, 190 Md. App. 753.
No. 09-11392.

#### Randy Nowak, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 877, 131 S. Ct. 190,

178 L. Ed. 2d 114,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6703.

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. 39.
## Draft Proposal CB-21

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC). Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/ commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/



## Daylighting Controls for Skylights (CB-21)

Objective: Clarify daylighting control provisions associated with fenestration and increased skylight area

and locate in a more appropriate subsection.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Revise Sections C402.3, C402.3.1.2, and item 2 of C402.3.1.1 as follows:

C402.3 Fenestration (Prescriptive). Fenestration shall comply with Table C402.3. Automatic

daylighting controls specified by this section shall comply with Section C405.2.2.3.2

.

C402.3.1.2 Increased skylight area with daylighting controls. The skylight area shall be permitted to

be a maximum of 5 percent of the roof area provi ded automatic daylighting controls meeting the

provisions of Section C405.2.2.3.2 are installed in daylight zones under the skylights.

C402.3.1.1 (item 2)

2. Automatic daylighting controls meeting the provisions of Section C405.2.2.3.2 are installed in

daylight zones; and

Reason: Clarification. The primary purpose of the parent section C402.3 is to introduce the provisions

of the code related to fenestration. It is later on in the section that the issue of skylights and an

increased skylight area allowance are addressed and the controls provisions relevant. The proposal

simply locates the relevant daylighting control provisions in the code where they are specifically

relevant.

Cost Impact: There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change.
#### Com. v. Gregory

05/03/2016

986 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 107
No. 09-10669.

#### William Charles Morva, Petitioner v. Virginia.

562 U.S. 849, 131 S. Ct. 97,

178 L. Ed. 2d 61,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5806.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.

Same case below, 278 Va. 329, 683 S.E.2d 553.
STATE OF WASHINGTON 

### DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341

July 10, 2015

Mr. Dennis M. McLenan, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200 SixthAvenue Seattle, WA 98101
RE: SIP Revision- Updates to Spokane Regional CleanAir Agency Solid Fuel Burning Device Standards Rule (Regulation 1 - Article VIII)
DearMr. McLerran:
OnFebruary 25,2015, Spokane Regional Clean

### AirAgency (SRCAA) asked Department of Ecology (Ecology) to adopt SRCAA's revised SolidFuel BurningDevice Standards Rule (Regulation 1 -Article VIII) into Washington's State Implementation Plan (SIP), and to submitit to United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. SRCAA amended rules for theuse ofsolid fuel buming devices, including wood stoves, in the Spokane area in 2014. Before adopting the amendments, SRCAA provided notice to the public, accepted public comments, and held a publichearing. Ecologydetermined that therevised rule aligns with state law and federal requirements, and agreed to initiate thepublicprocess onthe SIP revision. Ecology providedpublicnotice, accepted comments from March2, 2015, tln·ough April 10, 2015, and held two publichearings in Spokane on April2, 2015. Ecologymet all state and federal procedural requirements. Ecology received 48 comments onthis action, both oral and written. Ecology considered all of the comments received and developed a response to comments. After careful consideration of the comments, Ecology decided to adopt the SIP revision effective July 8, 2015. As the Governor's designee for Washington's SIP, I am submittingthis revision to EPA and requesting approval in the SIP.Mr. Dennis McLerran, Regional Administrator July 10,2015 Page2

The SIP submittal package is submitted electronically through EPA's e-SIP Submission System athttps://cdx.epa.gov/. Ifyou have any questions regarding this submittal, please contactJoanna Ekrem at Joanna.ekrem@ecy.wa.gov or (360) 407-6826. Sincerely,

MaiaD. Bellon Director

cc: JeffHunt,EPARegion 10 Stu Clark, ProgramManager, Air Quality Program Records file
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                       319
<INVENTORY>                                     12,627
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,206
<PP&E>                                           4,563
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,844
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,925
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,312
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,925
<SALES>                                         60,028
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,028
<CGS>                                           35,642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,148
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   253
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,707
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,531
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,931
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,931
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 15.8

Garth Mitchell

ExplorMine Consultants

20 Villa Grande, Riverside Road, Beverley, Johannesburg

CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON

I, Garth Mitchell, consent to the public filing of the
technical report titled The Mineral Resource Estimate for the Merensky and UG2 Reefs for the Ga-Phashsa Project Area, Limpopo Province, Republic of South Africa .

I also consent to any extracts from or a summary of the Technical Report used by Anooraq Resources Corporation.

I certify that I have read all reports being filed by Anooraq Resources Corporation and that they fairly and accurately represents the information in the sections of the Technical Report for which I am
responsible.

DATED the 31stday of March, 2012.



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ Garth Mitchell
|Garth Mitchell
#### People v Lewis

1st Dept: 143 AD3d 604

denied*

*

 Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2






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 The Dewey Electronics Corporation (the"Corporation") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen P. Krill, Treasurer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(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 results of operations of the Corporation.








/s/ Stephen P. Krill




Stephen P. Krill, Treasurer


Date:  September 24, 2010





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Dewey Electronics Corporation and will be retained by The Dewey Electronics Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 13.2****Section 906 Certification by Principal Financial Officer**In connection with the Annual Report of Elbit Medical Imaging Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F forthe year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Dudi Machluf, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: July 2, 2007       /s/ Dudi Machluf    Dudi Machluf    Chief Financial Officer
No. 09-11204.

#### Ernie Bradford Scroggins, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 867, 131 S. Ct. 158,

178 L. Ed. 2d 95,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6601.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 599 F.3d 433.
No. 10-54.

#### Rosario Aviado, Petitioner v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, et al.

562 U.S. 892, 131 S. Ct. 263,

178 L. Ed. 2d 139,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6087.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.

Same case below, 228 P.3d 177.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 221

To allow a prisoner under sentence of death to obtain judicial review of

newly discovered evidence showing that he is probably innocent.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 27 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. METZENBAUM (for himself and Mr. HATFIELD) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To allow a prisoner under sentence of death to obtain judicial

review of newly discovered evidence showing that he is

probably innocent.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 Section 1651 of title 28, United States Code, is

4 amended by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(c)(1) At any time, and notwithstanding any other

6 provision of law, a district court shall issue any appro7 priate writ or relief on behalf of an applicant under sen8 tence of death, imposed either in Federal or in State court,

9 who establishes that he is probably innocent of the offense

10 for which the death sentence was imposed.
2

S 221 IS

1 ‘‘(2) On receipt of an application filed pursuant

2 to paragraph (1), a district court shall promptly stay

3 the applicant’s execution pending consideration of

4 the application and, upon an unfavorable disposition,

5 until the court’s action is affirmed on direct review.

6 ‘‘(3) The court shall dismiss the application,

7 unless it alleges facts, supported by sworn affidavits

8 or documentary evidence, that—

9 ‘‘(A) could not have been discovered

10 through the exercise of due diligence in time to

11 be presented at trial; and

12 ‘‘(B) if proven, would establish that the

13 applicant is probably innocent.

14 ‘‘(4) If the court determines that the applicant

15 is currently entitled to pursue other available and ef16 fective remedies in either State or Federal court, the

17 court shall suspend its consideration of the applica18 tion under this section until the applicant has ex19 hausted those remedies. The stay issued pursuant to

20 paragraph (2) shall remain in effect during such a

21 suspension.’’.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofMOCON, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Robert L. Demorest, Chief Executive Officer of MOCON, Inc., herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of MOCON, Inc.

 

 
| Date: August 15, 2005 |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
|                       |   |
| /s/ Robert L. Demorest     |   |   |
| Robert L. Demorest         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer    |   |
|                            |        |  |

 

----
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 10/2/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
VERNETTA TAYLOR-PACE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-1465 (D.C. No.93-WY-1791-WD)

(D. Colo)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

In this appeal from the judgment entered for defend ant on plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims, the sole issue pr esented is whether the district court abused its discretion in precluding plaintiff from introducing at trial evidence concerning an employment grievance proceed ing. See, e.g. , Pandit v. American Honda Motor Co. , 82 F.3d 376, 379 (10th Cir. 1996)(appellate court reviews evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion ). The district court excluded evidence of the grievance proceeding under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403, and 408. While Rule 408 does not require the exclusion of ev idence regarding the settlement of a claim entirely different from the c laim being litigated, see Broadcort Capital Corp. v. Summa Medical Corp. , 972 F.2d 1183, 1194 (10th Cir. 1992), as is the case here, admission of such evide nce nonetheless implicates the same concerns with prejudice and deterrence to sett lements underlying Rule 408,
seeOrth v. Emerson Elec. Co. , 980 F.2d 632, 639 (10th Cir. 1992). In light of the strong deference afforded the trial court in these matters, see, e.g. , United States v. Roberts , 88 F.3d 872, 880 (10th Cir. 1996)(addressing excl usion of evidence under Rule 403), we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in excluding this evidence under Rules 401 and 403. S ee Orth , 980 F.2d at 638-39.-3-

The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby Circuit Judge