alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Employee Spotlight: Rachel Polite

/ Published July 25, 2022
RICHMOND, Va., 
*Employee spotlight regularly features outstanding non-supervisory personnel from throughout the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and other DLA employees on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. Organizational directors may submit names of employees they wish to feature in this column to DLA Aviation Public Affairs. For more information, call (804) 279-3139.*

**Name:** Rachel Polite

**Organization:** DLA Aviation at Oklahoma City

**Years of Service:** 9 years

**What is your job title, and what do you do, specifically?** I’m a sustainment specialist. In this capacity, I review the customer’s parts requirement at a strategic level to ensure required parts are available before they are needed. This requires me to interact with other DLA agencies, our Air Force customers and, at times, commercial entities to resolve issues that would prevent long term supportability.

**What do you like most about your job?** I like knowing how my day-to-day actions affect the warfighter operations at the field level.  While serving on active duty in the Air Force, I held a position that was responsible for sending repairables from the field back to the depot for overhaul. Now I support the customer by ensuring the components needed to get those repairables back out to the field are available.

**What kind(s) of training and education helps your work performance in your current role?** Any type of training or education that makes my work performance more efficient.  

**If you could speak directly to the warfighters you support, what would you tell them?**  I would tell them that I understand what they’re going through and there is a diligent team of professionals at DLA working very hard to support their efforts. We’ve got your back.

**What was your first job?** I joined the Air Force shortly after graduating from high school in 1989.

**What are some of your passions outside of work?** Some of my passions outside of work are line dancing and gardening.

**What’s the most thrilling/adventurous thing you have ever done?** I have a fear of heights, so going to the second level of the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France was the most thrilling thing I have ever done.

**What type of music do you most enjoy?** I enjoy listening to a wide variety of music, but I mostly enjoy listening to gospel.

**Have you had a mentor that helped you grow in your career?****If so who, and how did they help?** Most definitely! My mentor was a woman named Cheryl. She was my supervisor early in my Air Force career. She always demonstrated how to take care of your people, leave anything you do better than you how found it, and you don’t lose by sharing what you’ve learned.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted), Stephen H. Hollis, Chief Executive Officer of Double Eagle
Petroleum Co. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:

1.       The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
         December 31, 2003, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit
         32.1 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

Dated:  April 2, 2004                               /s/  Stephen H. Hollis
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Stephen H. Hollis
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
498 P.2d 191

#### Richard Andre BUSSEUIL, Administrator of the Estate of Patricia McWilliams, Deceased, Appellant, v. The ARIZONA VETERAN’S SERVICE COMMISSION as Guardian of the Estate of Norman McWilliams, an incompetent, Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CIV 1665.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A.

June 15, 1972.

Rehearing Denied July 24, 1972.

Review Denied Sept. 26, 1972.

George W. Oglesby, Phoenix, for appellant.

Bosco, Goldman & Kaplan, by Michael A. Bosco, Jr., Phoenix, for appellee.

CASE, Judge.

Patricia McWilliams was killed as a result of a collision between the ambulance in which she was riding and another vehicle. She died intestate, being survived by her husband, Norman McWilliams, an incompetent for whom the Arizona Veteran’s-Service was acting as guardian, and a son, Richard Andre Busseuil, who was later appointed the administrator of her estate.

A suit for wrongful death was instituted against the ambulance company and the driver of the other vehicle. This litigation resulted in a verdict against the ambulance company and in favor of the surviving son in the sum of $17,535.00. Thereafter, this judgment was reversed on appeal and the cause remanded for a new trial. Phoenix Respirator and Ambulance Service, Inc. v. McWilliams, 12 Ariz.App. 186, 468 P.2d 951 (1970). By stipulation, judgment was entered against the ambulance company only for the sum of $10,000.00 and this sum was paid into court subject to apportionment among the heirs of the decedent. Appellant filed a petition for an order apportioning the proceeds of judgment and thereafter, the trial court entered an order which held that the proceeds of the judgment were the community property of the decedent and her surviving husband, Norman McWilliams, and that in accordance with the law relating to distribution of personal estate of persons dying intestate, Richard Andre Busseuil and Norman McWil-liams were entitled to equal distribution of the proceeds. Pursuant to said order, the proceeds were distributed and receipted for by all of the parties. Thereafter, appellant *380filed a notice of appeal, appealing this order and judgment.

Appellant presents one question for review, to-wit:

ARE THE PROCEEDS OF A JUDGMENT IN A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION THE COMMUNITY OR SEPARATE PROPERTY OF THE DECEASED ?

However important this issue is, we do not feel that this is the proper case for its determination since in our opinion the appeal is moot. Appellant has accepted the benefits of the judgment and cannot now appeal therefrom. We have stated in the case of Finck v. Finck, 9 Ariz.App. 382, 452 P.2d 709 (1969):

> “A party who accepts an award or legal advantage under an order, judgment, or decree, waives his right to any such review of the adjudication as may again put in issue his right to the benefit which he has accepted.”

Appeal dismissed.

STEVENS, P. J., and D. L. GREER',. Judge of the Superior Court of Apache-County, concur.

NOTE: The Honorable Francis J. Dono-frio having requested that he be relieved' from the consideration of this matter, the Honorable D. L. Greer, a Judge of the-Superior Court, was called to sit in his. place.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joel Joseph, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 770]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J.), rendered September 8, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues of credibility and identification were properly presented to the jury and we find no reason to disturb its determinations.

The challenged portions of the People’s summation did not *125deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]). To the extent that any of the challenged remarks were inappropriate, the court’s prompt curative actions were sufficient to prevent any prejudice *(see People v Santiago, 52*NY2d 865 [1981]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
2017-1558.

#### State v. Meyerson.

Summit App. No. 28549, 2017-Ohio-8726. On appellant’s application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
EX-10.1



 







Exhibit 10.1







CA, Inc.

Restricted Stock Unit Certificate




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

Name of Participant

	 	 

EmplID
	 	 






	 	 	 
	Grant Number

	 	RU****
	Total Number of Restricted Stock Unit Awards Granted

	 	**0  **
	Grant Date
	 	 
	Stock Price on Grant Date

	 	 $





This Certificate confirms the grant under the CA, Inc. 2002 Incentive Plan, as amended and
restated effective as of May 20, 2005 (the “Plan”), to the above-named participant of the amount
of Restricted Stock Units set forth above. This Certificate does not constitute ownership of any
shares of Common Stock of CA, Inc. (the “Company”) or confer any rights associated with the
ownership of shares, except as expressly set forth herein. This grant is subject in all respects
to the applicable terms of the Plan, which are incorporated by reference in this Certificate.



This award will vest [INSERT VESTING SCHEDULE] on [INSERT VESTING DATE(S)]. No shares of Common
stock shall be issued to the participant prior to the date on which the Restricted Stock Units
vest, and shall be forfeited by the participant upon the participant’s Termination of Employment,
as defined in the Plan, prior to vesting for any reason other than death or Disability, as defined
in the Plan. All shares of restricted stock units will immediately vest upon the participant’s
death or Disability or upon a Change in Control of the Company.



The Company may, in its discretion, satisfy any statutory tax withholding obligations that arise
in connection with the Restricted Stock Units granted pursuant to this award by (i) withholding
shares of Common Stock that would otherwise be available for delivery upon the vesting of such
Restricted Stock Units having a Fair Market Value, as defined in the Plan, on the date the shares
first become taxable equal to the minimum statutory withholding obligation with respect to such
taxable shares and/or (ii) requiring that a participant pay to the Company, by cash, certified
check, bank draft or money order, an amount sufficient to satisfy any such statutory tax
withholding obligations.




	 	 	 	 	 
	By
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.12


                                 PROMISSORY NOTE


$289,969.77                                             Date:  December 10, 2002

For value received the undersigned TANGIBLE ASSET GALLERIES, INC. (the
"Promissory") promises to pay to the order of Silvano A. DiGenova (the "Payee").

At Newport Beach, California or such other place as the Payee may designate in
writing, the sum of $289,969.77 with interest from December 10, 2002, on the
unpaid principal at the rate of 12% percent annually.

The unpaid principal and accrued interest shall be payable on demand. All
payments on this Note shall be applied first in payment of accrued interest and
any remainder in payment of principal.

If any one or more of the provisions of this Note is determined to be
unenforceable, in whole or in part, or any reason, the remaining provisions
shall remain fully operative.

All payments of principal and interest on this Note shall be paid in the legal
currency of the United States. Promisor waives presentment for payment, protest
and notice of protest and nonpayment of this Note.

No renewal or extension of this Note, delay in enforcing any right of the Payee
under this Note, or assignment by Payee of this Note shall affect the liability
of the Promisor. All rights for the Payee under this Note are cumulative and may
be excised concurrently or consecutively at the Payee's option.

This note shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
California.

Signed this 10th day of December 2002 at Newport Beach, California.



By: /S/ SILVANO A. DIGENOVA  12/30/02
    ---------------------------------
    Silvano A. DiGenova,
    Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Quarterly Report of Scottish Annuity & Life Holdings,
Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Elizabeth A. Murphy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (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.



/s/ Elizabeth A. Murphy


Elizabeth A. Murphy
Chief Financial Officer
August 7, 2002
No. 10-101.

#### Aric Sven, Petitioner v. Nedra Chandler, Warden.

562 U.S. 893, 131 S. Ct. 297,

178 L. Ed. 2d 142,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6275.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melvin Whitelow, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 862]

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Mark, J.), entered May 24, 2001, convicting defendant after a nonjury trial of, inter alia, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by reversing those parts convicting defendant of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth and fifth degrees under counts three and four of the indictment, vacating the sentences imposed thereon and dismissing those counts of the indictment and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of two counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 165.45 [2], [5]) and one count each of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (§ 165.40) and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree (§ 165.05 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for substitution of counsel. Defendant failed to establish that there was “ ‘good cause for a substitution’ ” *(People v Sides,*75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]), and “it is evident from the record that ‘[a]ny communication problem between counsel and the defendant was caused by the defendant’s uncooperative attitude’ ” *(People v Johnson,*292 AD2d 871, 871-872 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 652 [2002]). We reject defendant’s further contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Because the People concede that counts three and four of the indictment must be dismissed as multiplicitous, we reverse those parts of the judgment without addressing the merits of defendant’s contention. However, even assuming, arguendo, the validity of that contention, we reject defendant’s further contention that the entire indictment must be dismissed *(see generally People v Brandel,*306 AD2d 860 [2003]; *People v Aarons,*296 AD2d 508 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 532 [2002]). In light of our decision with respect to count three, defendant’s remaining contention with respect to that count is moot. We therefore modify the judgment by reversing those parts convicting defendant of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth and fifth degrees under *1394counts three and four of the indictment, vacating the sentences imposed thereon and dismissing those counts of the indictment. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.
No. 09-11427.

#### Del Eugene Lange, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 880, 131 S. Ct. 196,

178 L. Ed. 2d 118,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7034.

October 4, 2010.

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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2380 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2380

  To encourage serious negotiations between the major league baseball 
 players and the owners of major league baseball in order to prevent a 
strike by the players or a lockout by the owners so that the fans will 
 be able to enjoy the remainder of the baseball season, the playoffs, 
                         and the World Series.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            August 11, 1994

 Mr. Metzenbaum (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Feingold) introduced 
           the following bill; which was read the first time

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To encourage serious negotiations between the major league baseball 
 players and the owners of major league baseball in order to prevent a 
strike by the players or a lockout by the owners so that the fans will 
 be able to enjoy the remainder of the baseball season, the playoffs, 
                         and the World Series.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Baseball Fans Protection Act of 
1994''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL IN 
              EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.

    The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new section:
    ``Sec. 27. (a) In General.--In the event that a unilateral term or 
condition is imposed by any party that has been subject to an agreement 
between the owners of major league baseball and the labor organization 
representing the players of major league baseball, the antitrust laws 
shall apply to that term or condition.
    ``(b) Termination of Effectiveness.--Subsection (a) shall cease to 
be effective upon the mutual adoption of an agreement between the 
owners of major league baseball and the labor organization representing 
the players of major league baseball to replace the basic agreement 
between the two parties that expired on December 31, 1993, but 
subsection (a) shall continue to apply to conduct occurring prior to 
the adoption of such an agreement.
    ``(c) Definition.--In this section, `term or condition' does not 
include a strike or a lockout.''.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered January 18, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00832-CR

NATHANIEL ALEXANDER CALDWELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-81946-2015

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 11, 2017 third motion for an extension of time to 

file his brief. We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER the brief received on January 11, 

2017 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT
      23.2**









PricewaterhouseCoopersRUT. 81.513.400-1Santiago de
                  ChileAv. Andrés Bello 2711Torre La Costanera - Pisos 2, 3, 4, y
                  5Las CondesTeléfono [56](2) 940 0000
                www.pwc.cl








**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      F-3 (File No. 333-138953) of Banco Santander-Chile of our report dated June
      28,
      2005, except for the restatement to constant Chilean pesos of December 31,
      2006,
      for which the date is April 13, 2007 relating to the financial
      statements which appears in this Form 20-F.




/s/
      PricewaterhouseCoopers





PricewaterhouseCoopersSantiago,
      ChileJune 14, 2007
### MURRAY ⏐ LOBB, PLLC

ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW 700 GEMINI, SUITE 115 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77058

- 2735 Phone: (281) 488

- 0630 Fax: (281) 488

- 2039 Web Site: www.murray

- lobb.com

April 30, 2015

Christopher A. Prine Clerk, First Court of Appeals First Court of A ppeals 301 Fannin Street Houston, Texas 77002

- 2066

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Re: Cause No. 01

- 14

- 00869

- CV; Richard Makover, Appellant vs. Randy S. Turrentine, Appellee; in the Court of Appeals, First Judicial District, Houston, Texas

Dear Madam or Sir:

Please be advised that the parties have resolved their issues and reached a settlement of the above

- referenced matter.

The parties hereby request that this matter and all deadlines be placed on hold for 21 days to allow for preparation and exchange of t he final settlement documentation.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions or require anything further, please immediately contact the undersigned or his assistant Marie by calling
281

- 488

- 0630

.

Very truly yours,

Murra y | Lobb, PLLC

By: /s/ Kyle L. Dickson Kyle L. Dickson Enclosure(s)

cc: Ronald J. Smeberg BY FAX TO (210) 598

- 7357 AND/OR Smeberg Law Firm, PLLC BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE 2010 W. Kings Hwy San Antonio, Texas 78201 ACCEPTED 01-14-00869-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/30/2015 9:22:05 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00122

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.B.B.

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 2157

- CV

Honorable Don Burgess, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order terminating

appellant’s parental rights is AFFIRMED. No costs of appeal are assessed against appellant.

SIGNED July 18, 2018.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice
No. 09-11017.

#### Rodrecus A. Morris, Petitioner v. David B. Everett, Warden.

562 U.S. 859, 131 S. Ct. 132,

178 L. Ed. 2d 79,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6128.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 366 Fed. Appx. 469.
#### Com. v. Thompson

12/07/2015

504 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 99
No. 10-5468.

#### Guy Randy White Horse, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 923, 131 S. Ct. 304,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7491.

178 L. Ed. 2d 198,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
No. 10-5100.

#### Peng Thao, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 904, 131 S. Ct. 241,

178 L. Ed. 2d 161,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6548.

October 4, 2010.

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