alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# More food trucks for warfighters

/ Published April 5, 2023
PHILADELPHIA, 
Employees from Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, to include DLA Troop Support Deputy Commander Kishayra J. Lambert and Navy Capt. Tim Griffin, DLA Troop Support Subsistence branch director, visited Custom Mobile Food Equipment in Hammonton, N.J., on Mar. 31, 2023, to observe the vendor’s progress on producing food trucks that will be used to serve military installations. Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support partners with various military components to deliver food trucks to military bases across the country and continually works to deliver optimal, global supply chain solutions to enable ready, lethal Warfighters and other valued partners.
#### People v Baught

2d Dept: 138 AD3d 1129 (Kings)

denied 8/12/16 (Pigott, J.)
#### People v Evans

App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 129(A) (NY)

denied 3/14/17 (Fahey, J.)
#### People v Artie

3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1082 (Ulster)

denied 3/17/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
Memorandum Subject:

From:

To: August 6, 2014

August 5, 2014 Meeting BetweenAnadarko andthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

## /'()

**~** Chris Stoneman, Policy Advisor 

### l-/frwL



## ~ Outreach and Information Division, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Docket- EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151 This memorandum to docket provides a briefsummary ofthe main discussionpoints made at the subject meeting during the commentperiod for the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulenpking (ANPR): "ManagingEmissions from Oil and Natural Gas Production in Indian Country." (79 Federal Register 32502, June 5, 2104) Meeting details: When: August 5, 2014; 10:00- 11 :00 a.m. ET Where: EPA Offices, RTP, NC Participants: Greg Green, EPA, OAQPS Chebryll Edwards, EPA, OAQPS Laura McKelvey, EPA, OAQPS Chris Stoneman, EPA, OAQPS Bruce Moore, EPA, OAQPS GregNizich, EPA, OAQPS Judy Ostendorf, EPA, Region 8 Scott Jackson, EPA, Region 8 MonicaMorales, EPA, Region 8 Claudia Smith, EPA, Region 8 Cindy Beeler, EPA, Region 8 Deirdre Rothery, EPA, Region 8 TimRuss, EPA, Region 8 Chad Schlichtemeier, Anadarko Jill Cooper, Anadarko Julia Jones, Anadarko Katherine Doolittle, Anadarko Angela Zivkovich, Anadarko The EPA met with Anadarko at the company's request. During the meeting, EPA provided an overview ofseveral key aspects ofthe minor source general permit program for Indian country and the recently-issued ANPRfor New Sourcereview (NSR) minor source oil and natural gas activity in Indian country. During the course ofthe meeting the Anadarko raised several questions that were discussed:1) Overarching Tribal MinorNSRRulemaking Questions a. Potential for Region specific efforts underthe program b. Implementation approaches for Tribal MinorNSR 2) Ozone National AmbientAir Quality Standards Attainment and Nonattainment and the Effect on Tribal MinorNSR a. Cause and Contribute b. Interim Period c. Credit for reducing emissions from existing sources d. Federally enforceable emission reductions from non-road engines The EPA answered basic questions about the content oftheANPRand offered to be available for further discussions and/or exchanges oftechnical information. This memorandum will be filed in the docket for the proposedrule and will be available for public review.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.
- 1 - UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________ No. 98-21150 Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SIRVETUS LAMONT RATCLIFF, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-98-CR-245-1)

_________________________________________________________________ October 20, 1999 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Having pleaded guilty to bei ng a felon in possession of
firearms and possession of firearms with altered or obliterated
serial numbers, in violati on of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) and (k),
Sirvetus Ratcliff contends that the district court violated F ED
. R.
C RIM . P. 32(c)(1) by overruling his objection to the presentence
report’s (PSR) recommended increase of his offense leve l under

U.S .S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). In this regard, Ratcliff maintains that- 2 -

the court failed to make factual findings regarding whether he had used the weapons in connection with another felony offense.

A court’s compliance with Rule 32 is a question of law,
reviewed de novo

. United States v. Myers , 150 F.3d 459, 465 (5th Cir. 1998). A court must resolve disputed facts at sentencing by “mak[ing] either a finding on the allegation or a determination that no finding is necessary because the controverted matter will

not be tak en into account in, or will not affect, sentencing”.

F ED
. R. C RIM
. P. 32(c)(1). But, Rule 32 does n ot “re quire a
catechismic regurgita tion of each fact determined and each fact rejected”. U

nited States v. Sherbak , 950 F.2d 1095, 1099 (5th Cir. 1992) ; e.g. , U

nited States v. Gaytan , 74 F.3d 545, 557 (5th Cir. 1996). When the district court adopted the PSR’s findings,
Ratcliff was “provided adequate notice” of the resolution of the
factual dispute. S ee United States v. Mora , 994 F.2d 1129, 1141 (5th Cir. 1993).
The court implicitly relied o n the PSR’s recommendation by overruling Ratcliff’s objection, see Mora , 994 F.2d at 1141, and expressly noted in its written judgment that it adopted the PSR’s factual findings and guideline application. Therefore, the court adopted the PSR’s finding that a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrated that the adjustment was warranted because Ratcliff had
used the firearms in connection with an aggravated robbery or an aggravated kidnapping, thus satisfying Rule 32(c)(1). See United

States v. Anderson , 174 F .3d 515, 526 n.3 (5th Cir. 1999); M ora , 994 F.2d at 1141.- 3 - AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33694-33695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16315]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[WY-989-1050-00-P]


Filing of Plats of Survey; Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The plats of survey of the following described lands are 
scheduled to be officially filed in the Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, 
Wyoming, thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication.

Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming

T. 26 N., R. 71 W., accepted June 10, 1998
T. 23 N., R. 116 W., accepted June 10, 1998
T. 24 N., R. 116 W., accepted June 10, 1998

    If protests against a survey, as shown on any of the above plats, 
are received prior to the official filing, the filing will be stayed 
pending consideration of the protest(s) and or appeal(s). A plat will 
not be officially filed until after disposition of protest(s) and or 
appeal(s)
    These plats will be placed in the open files of the Wyoming State 
Office, Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, 
Wyoming, and will be available to the public as a matter of information 
only. Copies of the plats will be made available upon request and 
prepayment of the reproduction fee of $1.10 per copy.
    A person or party who wishes to protest a survey must file with the 
State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming, a notice 
of protest prior to thirty (30) calendar days from

[[Page 33695]]

the date of this publication. If the protest notice did not include a 
statement of reasons for the protest, the protestant shall file such a 
statement with the State Director within thirty (30) calendar days 
after the notice of protest was filed.
    The above-listed plats represent dependent resurveys, subdivision 
of sections.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 1828, 5353 Yellowstone Road, 
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.

    Dated: June 10, 1998.
Jerry L. Messick,
Acting Chief, Cadastral Survey Group.
[FR Doc. 98-16315 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-M
No. 10-93.

#### Stallion, Inc., Petitioner v. John Galliano, S.A.

562 U.S. 893, 131 S. Ct. 288,

178 L. Ed. 2d 142,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6026.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.

Same case below, 15 N.Y.3d 75, 904 N.Y.S.2d 683, 930 N.E.2d 756.
No. 10-8.

#### Eugene Iovine, Inc., Petitioner v. National Labor Relations Board.

562 U.S. 956, 131 S. Ct. 458,

178 L. Ed. 2d 282,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8047.

October 12, 2010.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674, 130 S. Ct. 2635, 177 L. Ed. 2d 162 (2010).

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 371 Fed. Appx. 167.
*May 2, 2017*

2017-Ohio-2615.]

2017-0045.

#### State ex rel. Adena Med. Ctr. v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-1167, 2016-Ohio-8277. On appellant’s application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
No. 09-11292.

#### Marcelo Sandoval, Petitioner v. Carol Holinka, Warden.

562 U.S. 872, 131 S. Ct. 173,

178 L. Ed. 2d 104,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6525.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
# DLA Distribution Commander delivers Thanksgiving Day message

/ Published Nov. 22, 2023
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
As we prepare to celebrate Thanksgiving, I am reminded of how thankful I am to be part of such an extraordinary organization. Your sense of duty, commitment, patriotism, and dedication to providing support to our men and women in uniform across the globe is unmatched.

When you come together with family and friends this holiday, please take a moment to think of those who will not be with their loved ones this year; those who are serving around the world. Each one of you can be proud of the profound difference you make knowing that our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Guardians and Coast Guardsmen are well supplied with the provisions and tools to do their job.

Many of us will take time during the holidays to help our fellow Americans in need. Whether through donations, volunteering to serve a hot meal, taking care of a neighbor who has no family, or collecting clothing for those in need this winter; the DLA Distribution family is always charitable, always there helping others – that’s who we are, that is what makes this organization so special.

Mr. Knight and I are thankful to have such an outstanding workforce who gives of themselves every day for our men and women in uniform.

Best wishes to you all for a Happy Thanksgiving!
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2236

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into negotiations concerning

the Nueces River project, Texas, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 23 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Mrs. HUTCHISON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into negotiations concerning the Nueces River project, Texas, and

for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. NUECES RIVER PROJECT, TEXAS.

4 (a) LOAN CONTRACT.—

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after

6 the date of enactment of this Act and in accordance

7 with this section, the Secretary of the Interior (re8 ferred to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall

9 enter into and, to the extent practicable, complete

10 negotiations with the city of Corpus Christi, Texas,
2

•S 2236 IS

1 on loan contract numbered 6–07–01–XO675 (re2 ferred to in this section as the ‘‘loan contract’’),

3 which was entered into pursuant to title X of the

4 Reclamation Development Act of 1974 (Public Law

5 93–493; 43 U.S.C. 600g et seq.) and concerns the

6 Nueces River project, Texas (referred to in this sec7 tion as the ‘‘project’’).

8 (2) DISCOUNT.—The Secretary shall discount

9 the remaining Federal debt obligation under the loan

10 contract based on the actual water yield to the city

11 of Corpus Christi from the project. For the purpose

12 of this paragraph, the actual water yield shall be

13 considered to be 88,394 acre feet per year, which is

14 57.11 percent of the original estimated incremental

15 yield expected from the construction of the project.

16 (3) PREPAYMENT.—Upon request by the city of

17 Corpus Christi, the Secretary shall accept prepay18 ment on the remaining Federal debt obligation

19 under the loan contract in the amount specified in

20 paragraph (4).

21 (4) TOTAL REMAINING COST.—The prepayment

22 under paragraph (3) and the discount based on the

23 actual water yield under paragraph (2) shall result

24 in a total remaining cost of the project of

25 $21,031,077. The payment of this amount to the
3

•S 2236 IS

1 Secretary shall satisfy local sponsor cost obligations

2 with respect to the project.

3 (b) TRANSFER OF TITLE.—On payment of the

4 amount specified in subsection (a)(4), the Secretary is au5 thorized to transfer title for the project to local sponsors

6 of the project.

Æ
Exhibit 10.18

AMENDMENT TO DRS TECHNOLOGIES INC.  AMENDED AND RESTATED 1996 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN

This Amendment, dated as of March 9, 2004 is made to the DRS Technologies Inc. Amended and Restated 1996 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the "Plan").
Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.

WHEREAS,
DRS Technologies, Inc. has previously adopted the Plan;

WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 21 of the Plan, the Committee may, subject to the limitations contained therein, amend the Plan;

WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 13 of the Plan, the Committee may grant restricted stock units;

WHEREAS,
the Committee desires to amend the Plan to specifically name restricted stock units as a type of Other Award which may be granted under Section 13 and to remove
extraneous references to laws which are no longer applicable;

WHEREAS,
the Committee recognizes that such amendments for clarification purposes do not constitute material amendment of the Plan;

NOW
THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 21 of the Plan, the Plan is amended as follows:



---



QuickLinks
# DLA Distribution Commander Army Brig. Gen Richard Dix addresses culinary institute on Veterans Day

/ Published Dec. 8, 2015
HYDE PARK, New York, 
United States Army Brig. Gen. Richard B. Dix addressed a crowd at the Culinary Institute of America’s Veterans Day celebration in Hyde Park, N.Y. In his opening remarks, Dix described to the audience of students, teachers, and family members, the importance of Veterans Day as a day set aside to thank and honor all those who served honorably in the military. “In fact,” stated Dix, “Veterans Day is largely intended to thank our living veterans for their service, to acknowledge that their contributions to our national security are appreciated, and to emphasize the fact that all those who served have sacrificed and done their duty.” He went on to give a special thank you to the Vietnam veterans and added that he is humbled to follow in their footsteps.
“Just as liberty, freedom and peace are not ideas we can take for granted, neither can we take our individual or common safety for granted. Liberty and safety can only be achieved through constant awareness and the willingness to keep and maintain them,” said Dix.  It is with that thought in mind that Dix believes Francis Scott Key ended the last stanza of the “Star Spangled Banner” with a question mark. “O’re the land of the free and the home of the brave?” 

Dix concluded his remarks by reminding the audience, “Our veterans fought so our children won’t have to, so that the next generation, here and around the world, will realize a more hopeful life on this Earth.”

The Culinary Institute of America (CIA) is the premier culinary college in the United States. Today, 2,900-plus students representing every state and 30 foreign countries are enrolled in the college's associate degree programs in culinary arts and baking and pastry arts and bachelor's degree programs in culinary arts management, baking and pastry arts management, and culinary science. In addition, thousands of industry professionals and amateur cooks enroll in continuing education courses and food enthusiast programs each year. In addition to its main campus in Hyde Park, N.Y., the college has branch campuses in St. Helena, Calif., San Antonio, Texas, and Singapore. Veterans Day is a particularly special holiday at CIA as veterans from all branches of the military enhance their student body and bring much-valued diversity and life experience to the campus.
## EXHIBIT



# IJimd;J

Santa Monica Airport Made 

# $25,000 Gift

SANTA MONICA, April 111~ The Santa J.fonk!a City Counell today aeeepllHt a 111ftor $m,lIOO
rrom ~h. Douslaa Aln:rart Co.
aa lh. llrat atop In a prosram leading 10 removal or certain ftIght haurds at the well&. .nd or Ihe Municipal Airport. Comml88loner ,E. C. lo'roeman, head ot the el\y's lInance de· partment, announceit thRt the money will h•• usod by lh•• clty to pay for land nned..., In car· l"ylng Qut the expansIon plan. A cond.mnatlon 8ult tor RequI· sltlon Of the properly h811be"n appro,'1!d, by War Department nm('la\ .•• Source: LATimes, 1944 

# Santa 

# Monica Submits Airport Expansion Plans

RA~T'\ Mo~·nCA.,July 13,- Condt-mnllh(,#R or pUl't"hase 

### by tho "'ednra I 

### $lo\'nrnnumt n( J

### 8IJ fOfl; WC'...:t

## or Clo\'E1r ,,'lpJd \\'115 ht PI'\~IIt"('t t()(fa~·

### foltowing 

### .Action b,\' tho ('h)' Council in Ruhmjt. Un" to 

### the 

# cs.
..

\I·nw ":nRintlPro ('or•• :; ,)j;ln,~for h1UI]NJiAt~ fiX· pan";JOll of fhl' 

### ,"u"i.-lool ahllOrt.

• Itt· unUIII"I'.lI'O' Hurl'S au l'UU'" t

### dbu. e 

### s 11

# s.ooo Iowa

### rd Ihe "x. p~n1iPof 

### letlgt.heninf( the pl'h•• ('Hl,d 

### nmWi')' to 5000 

## tet'1. Th& ('il," al:lo ilgJ'f'P';; '0 

### romrlbul& any [lOlt'lion 

### of the tnunicipal 1:01(

## cour~e to the 

## expansIon program. ell)' 

### fl:ngineer 

## Howard B. 

## Car. tel' 

### ;arf\'i!;ed the Council 

### that 

## tbe '('xl)ansion plan wouid II \.• 

### (,lo\'~t'Ffe!dthe 

## equtvalent ofa 1000·f()ot rmlWfI"" 

### be•• ause tbe ('a-( •.. d~· 

### 811proach to the field 18 ,II) f~ct Fthm'p the ~UI'Mlmdjnl :fl'(,·it, 

### whHe fh~W(',"Hn'J~' 

### end
\\'011 1ftllf"'''' 

## nn so·root orop. One l'lflll::P. 

### in thr cIt)"'" 

## J)mpl'btll &';\U" f()r' l)01ynlt>nt b~' the Vf>d"'nd 

### ~(j\·('J·nment. o( $160.000 to tht'! dl.\" for damftH'e done 

## to rhl';' d.S·

.

s A'llU 

### course, 

### withtht pnwi,c' th:ll 

### lht." 

## mcm~y il 10 

### be :lPIl!i •.• <! to tho alrpo.·t 

## cxpan,lon prOj •.• r-t,

LA Times, July 13, 1944,
#### In the Matter of Angelica D. and Another, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Deborah D., Appellant; Sheltering Arms Children & Family Services, Respondent.

[69 NYS3d 312]

Orders of fact-finding and disposition (one paper each), Family Court, New York County (Emily M. Olshansky, J.), entered on or about December 1, 2016, which, after a hearing, determined that respondent mother had permanently neglected the subject children, terminated her parental rights, and committed custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that despite the agency’s diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, the mother failed to plan for the children’s future *{see*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). The agency made diligent efforts by, among other things, referring the mother for a mental health evaluation, parenting skills and anger management classes, and by scheduling and facilitating visitation with the children *{see*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [f]; *see also Matter of*
      *588
      *Marissa Tiffany C-W. [Faith W.],*125 AD3d 512, 512 [1st Dept 2015]). Throughout this period, however, the mother repeatedly rejected the agency’s efforts. She insisted that she did not need services and accused the agency of wrongfully taking the children away. She also refused to provide her home address, and the agency was unable to conduct an essential home visit.

The mother’s refusal to participate in services and take steps to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the children from their home clearly amounts to a failure to plan for the children’s future *(see Matter of Cerenithy B. [Ecksthine B.],*149 AD3d 637, 638 [1st Dept 2017], *lv denied*29 NY3d 1106 [2017]; *Matter of Dante Alexander W. [Norman W.],*148 AD3d 492, 493 [1st Dept 2017]). She also failed to visit the children consistently, attending less than half of the permitted visits, which in itself constituted a ground for the finding of permanent neglect *(Matter of Angelica S. [Cynthia C.],*144 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 1128 [2017]).

A preponderance of the evidence supports the determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children *(Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). A suspended judgment is not appropriate, given the mother’s lack of insight into her behavior and the special needs of the children, and given the fact that the children’s needs are being met in their foster home, where they have resided since August 2013 and where they are well-bonded with the foster parents, who wish to adopt them *(see Matter of Julianna Victoria S. [Benny William W.],*89 AD3d 490, 491 [1st Dept 2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 805 [2012]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber, Oing, JJ.
#### Com. v. Bradwell

12/16/2015

377 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 1050
##### 



EXHIBIT 1

The following is a list of all of the Companys significant subsidiaries, their
jurisdiction of incorporation and the names under which they do business, if
different from their name.

|                                         |  |               |  |                     
|---------------------------------------- |  | ------------- |  | --------------------
|                                         |  |               |  | Any other name under
|                                         |  |               |  | which they do       
|Company                                  |  | Jurisdiction  |  | business            
|                                         |  |               |  |                     
|Jing Tai Industrial Investment
Co. Ltd.  |  | Hong Kong     |  | N/A                 
|Jingle Technology Co. Ltd.               |  | BVI           |  | N/A                 
|BHL Networks Technology Co. Ltd.         |  | Cayman Island |  | N/A                 
|Beijing BHL Networks Technology
Co. Ltd. |  | China         |  | N/A
No. 09-11272.

#### David Harford, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 871, 131 S. Ct. 171,

178 L. Ed. 2d 102,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6837.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 370 Fed. Appx. 322.