alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Employees remember Pearl Harbor nurses during Memorial Day ceremony

/ Published May 27, 2016
Philadelphia, 

Naval Support Activity Philadelphia employees heard stories of military nurses that survived the attack on Pearl Harbor as part of a Memorial Day observation May 26.“We have a lot of stories about the men out there, but you hear very little stories about the women,” said keynote speaker Winifred Woll.Woll, a member of the Sons and Daughters of Pearl Harbor Survivors, said that the last nurse present during the attack passed away in 2013 and she feels it’s important to keep their stories alive.She told the story of Dorothy Egans, a nurse who comforted a wounded soldier before amputating his hand. The soldier survived and made contact with Egans in 2002, but she passed away before he could visit her.Her family insisted that he still come to visit. They welcomed him and presented him with the scissors she used to remove his wounded limb.“These scissors meant so much to him because it reminded him of her and all that she did to make him feel better that day,” Woll said.Wreaths were laid at the front of the auditorium stage following the speech to honor fallen service men and women.Patricia Cappo-Dean, a clerk with Industrial Hardware, attended the ceremony and said that she felt that telling the warfighters’ stories humanizes their service.“It’s important for us to remember the sacrifices they made in protecting us,” Cappo-Dean said.The Philadelphia Compound Veterans Committee organized the event.
# DLA Aviation hosts first virtual Reverse Industry Day featuring AbilityOne

/ Published Nov. 8, 2022
Richmond, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency Aviation hosted its virtual Reverse Industry Day October 26, with five non-profit agencies whose products and support services help ensure employees with disabilities are able to hold and maintain employment and productive careers.  

This is the first Reverse Industry Day to feature the AbilityOne program, which employs more than 40,000 people with visual impairments or significant disabilities at roughly 450-member nonprofit agencies. These agencies in turn support DLA Aviation customers by providing unique items and vital support. The five agencies that participated in the event discussed their manufacturing capabilities, which support various procurement lists.

DLA Aviation has developed an AbilityOne strategic plan that focuses on proactively advocating for the program, said Crystal Ober, deputy director within DLA Aviation Command Support Directorate’s Small Business Programs Division.

This advocacy includes reviewing acquisition strategy documents for AbilityOne opportunities and working with participants where mission needs intersect with AbilityOne capabilities.

"AbilityOne supports our mission as providers of products and services for DLA Aviation's mission, as well as supporting Defense Supply Center Richmond through service contracts," Ober said.

The AbilityOne program in its current state was established in 1971, and DLA has participated in the program since its inception.

This year's annual spend with AbilityOne agencies totals nearly $35 million for warfighter-related services and products such as aircraft seat belts, spill containment products, aerial delivery equipment and battery adapters. AbilityOne also supports custodial and landscaping services and the Base Supply Store on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia.

The Reverse Industry Day focus is significant in that its timing falls within National Disability Employment Awareness Month, which is celebrated in October . This year's focus is "Disability: Part of the Equity Equation."

"Aviation partnering with AbilityOne is mutually beneficial," DLA Aviation’s Acquisition Executive Catherine Contreras said. "It provides employment opportunities for those who are eager to demonstrate their capabilities, and we get a quality product at a fair market price."
No. 10-6159.

#### Gene Ervin Atkins, Petitioner v. Debra Herndon, Warden.

562 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 520,

178 L. Ed. 2d 384,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8555.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 726.
No. 10-5994.

#### In re Michael Daniels, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 825, 131 S. Ct. 364,

178 L. Ed. 2d 258,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7835.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
No. 10-5676.

#### Belton L. Reeves, Petitioner v. Department of Justice, et al.

562 U.S. 934, 131 S. Ct. 335,

178 L. Ed. 2d 218,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7643.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 10-6051.

#### Lorenzo Tarver, Petitioner v. Mississippi.

562 U.S. 970, 131 S. Ct. 479,

178 L. Ed. 2d 303,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7979.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Mississippi denied.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

June 11, 2010

Ms. Shelley Dahlberg

Office of the Attorney General

PO Box 12548 (MC 059)

Austin, TX 78711-2548

Mr. J. W. Beverly

Dow Golub Berg & Beverly, LLP

8 Greenway Plaza, 14th Floor

Houston, TX 77046

RE:Case Number:  08-1001

Court of Appeals Number:  01-06-00490-CV

Trial Court Number:  2001-34089

Style:THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON

v.

STEPHEN BARTH

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@courts.state.tx.us or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 08-1001Page 1**
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Martin, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 557]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J., at plea; Freehill, J., at sentence), rendered October 27, 2015, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as a felony, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In 2003, the defendant entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to one count of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as a felony. When he failed to appear on his sentencing date, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. The defendant was ultimately sentenced in 2015. When he was sentenced, the County Court imposed a sentence that was greater than the one it had promised in connection with the plea agreement. On appeal, the defendant contends that the court erred in imposing a greater sentence than it had originally promised since the transcript of the plea proceeding is no longer available and the record therefore fails to demonstrate that his appearance on the scheduled sentencing date was a condition of the plea agreement.

The defendant’s contention that the County Court improperly imposed a greater sentence than it had promised is not preserved for appellate review, as he neither objected to the sentence on that ground nor moved to vacate his plea *(see People v Carrasquillo,*133 AD3d 774, 774 [2015]; *People v Allano,*116 AD3d 874, 875 [2014]; *People v Scoca,*38 AD3d 801, 801 [2007]; *People v Delatorre,*306 AD2d 419, 419 [2003]). The defendant’s attorney actually conceded at the sentencing proceeding that the defendant violated the terms of the plea agreement when he failed to appear on the scheduled sentencing date *(cf. People v Figgins,*87 NY2d 840, 841 [1995]; *People v Grant,*122 AD3d 767, 767 [2014]; *People v Delatorre,*306 AD2d at 419-420). Furthermore, the defendant’s failure to raise his current contention before the County Court deprived both the People and the court of the opportunity to address and remedy the alleged shortcoming in the record *(cf. People v Parris,*4 NY3d 41 [2004]). Under the circumstances, we decline to review the defendant’s contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see generally People v Chatman,*14 *754AD3d 620, 620 [2005]; *People v Brooks,*217 AD2d 492, 492 [1995]; *People v Prescott,*191 AD2d 521 [1993]).

Chambers, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
No. 10-28.

#### Anne Chae, et al., Petitioners v. SLM Corporation, et al.

562 U.S. 961, 131 S. Ct. 458,

178 L. Ed. 2d 287,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8125.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 593 F.3d 936.
# Red River hosts annual Employee Appreciation Day

/ Published Nov. 30, 2015
RED RIVER, Texas, 
Each year, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Red River, Texas, hosts its annual Employee Appreciation Day at Elliott Lake, a recreational area located at Red River Army Depot to show appreciation to all employees for their hard work. This year’s event was held on Oct. 16.

In true Texas fashion, everyone enjoyed a barbecue with “all the fixings,” games such as dominoes, spades, corn hole and the crowd favorite – horseshoes. Employees also participated in the second annual dessert contest vying for the title of best cake, best cookie, best pie or best miscellaneous. Additionally, a car and motorcycle show was added to this year’s event, and it featured 11 entries. 

“I enjoyed the day at the lake fellowshipping with co-workers,” said Carolyn Webster, DLA Distribution Red River packer. “I especially enjoyed competing in the domino game!”

DLA Distribution Red River’s commander, Army Lt. Col. Anthony Stoeger and deputy commander, Frank Holobinko each volunteered to take their turn in the dunking booth, giving any employee who was willing, the chance to dunk them.

“The DLA Distribution Red River Employee Appreciation Day is just one of the ways management can thank our employees for their hard work and dedication throughout the year,” explained Stoeger. “This year’s event had something for everyone. Overall, I thought it was a great event and we look forward to making next year’s EAD even better.”

Keith Swartz, DLA Distribution Red River, Texas, supervisory Distribution facilities specialist summed up the day by saying “I look forward to the Employee Appreciation Day each year. It is a great time to share comradery with the entire Red River team, from warehouse workers to office personnel, all the way to the Command Office. It allows all of us to have fun for the day and realize that no matter what our jobs may be while working, it takes all of us to make DLA Distribution Red River the successful distribution center it is today.”
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Michael A. Brochu, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Loudeye Corp. 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors: (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
registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: February 9, 2005
    /s/ Michael A. BrochuMichael A. BrochuPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Com. v. Garcia

05/10/2016

24 EAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 133 A.3d 71
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND THE CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             1,377,482
<SECURITIES>                                       3,512,619
<RECEIVABLES>                                      2,585,774
<ALLOWANCES>                                         165,000
<INVENTORY>                                        2,192,453
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  10,049,660
<PP&E>                                             3,170,292
<DEPRECIATION>                                     2,017,104
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1,153,188
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              2,439,223
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                             628,818
<OTHER-SE>                                        15,224,251
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      18,384,892
<SALES>                                            8,885,511
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   8,885,511
<CGS>                                              3,075,452
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      3,075,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   3,689,792
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    2,120,267
<INCOME-TAX>                                         710,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                1,410,267
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                       1,410,267
<EPS-BASIC>                                             0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.22



</TABLE>
# 128th Aviation Brigade learns about DLA Aviation missions

/ Published Jan. 28, 2016
RICHMOND, Virginia, 
The frigid temperatures and impending snow storm didn’t deter the U.S. Army’s 128th Aviation Brigade from Fort Eustis, Virginia from visiting Defense Logistics Agency Aviation for a leadership professional development event Jan. 21.

128th Aviation Brigade commander, Army Col. John Smith requested the training opportunity to provide his Company commanders awareness and knowledge of DLA and how it interfaces with Army tactical units. The 128th conducts all Army Aviation maintenance training for enlisted and warrant officers and pushes about 6,000 students through the program annually. 

To start the day, DLA Aviation Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Allan Day gave opening remarks at DLA Aviation Headquarters in Richmond, Virginia. Briefings included a DLA Aviation mission overview, briefings on the activity’s Customer Operations, Supplier Operations, and Strategic Acquisitions Directorates, as well as a detailed briefing on Army Customer Facing Operations.

Day told the group that he was a maintenance officer by trade and appreciated the challenges maintainers go through because, without parts, maintainers are unhappy people. 

He pointed out, through his own experience, that although the ‘get er done’ attitude is what makes maintainers great, it could also be part of the problem in getting the parts when needed if demands are not put on the supply system each time a part is used. 

He explained that scavenging and holding parts for future use does not keep the demand up to date. He said maintainers are partners in this chain of supply and it’s about transaction discipline, the job is not done until the documentation is completed.

“This is a team effort and DLA Aviation is part of your team,” said Day. “If it rolls, flies, floats, or breathes, DLA supports it and it’s really great to be able to make a positive impact for our warfighters.” He said if you do it right from the beginning through ordering and documentation it keeps the supply signals current and the system will not fail them

Smith told the students, as future battalion executive officers, the training will help them to look for these types of abuses and to understand the 2nd and 3rd order effects of not doing it correctly. He also said understanding these processes is an important part of how the system works to their advantage.
# C_2016098EN.01006302.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/63

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2016 — Goch v Council

(Case F-21/13) (1)

1

(2016/C 098/83)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1/6/2013, p. 55.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.1RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002I, Sheldon C. Fenton certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Veridien Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth physical quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 14, 2007                                                          /s/ Sheldon C. Fenton     Sheldon C. Fenton,     Chief Executive Officer
# C_2014245EN.01001302.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2014 — K-Swiss v OHIM — Künzli SwissSchuh (parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T-85/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)))

2014/C 245/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: K-Swiss, Inc. (Westlake, California, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and K. Tasma, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Künzli SwissSchuh AG (Windisch, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2012 (Case R 174/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Künzli SwissSchuh AG and K-Swiss, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders K-Swiss, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders K-Swiss, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

1

---