alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16626]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary of Defense


Membership of the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) 
Performance Review Boards

AGENCY: Defense Contract Audit Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of Membership of the Defense Contract Audit Agency 
Performance Review Boards.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of the members of the 
Performance Review Boards (PRBs) of the Defense Contract Audit Agency 
(DCAA). The publication of PRB membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 
4314(c)(4). The Performance Review Boards provide fair and impartial 
review of Senior Executive Service (SES) performance appraisals and 
make recommendations to the Director, DCAA, regarding final performance 
ratings and performance awards for DCAA SES members.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dale R. Collins, Chief, Human Resources Management, Defense Contract 
Audit Agency, Department of Defense, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6219, 
703-767-1236.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the 
following are the names and titles of the executives who have been 
appointed to serve as members of the DCAA Performance Review Boards. 
They will serve one-year terms, effective upon publication of this 
notice.

Headquarters Performance Review Board

Mr. Earl Newman, Assistant Director, Operations, Defense Contract Audit 
Agency, Chairperson.
Mr. Larry Uhlfelder, Assistant Director, Policy and Plans, Defense 
Contract Audit Agency member.
Mr. Kirk Moberley, General Counsel, Defense Contract Audit Agency, 
member.

Regional Performance Review Board

Mr. James Lovelace, Director, Field Detachment, Defense Contract Audit 
Agency Chairperson
Mr. Richard Buhre, Regional Director, Eastern, Defense Contract Audit 
Agency, member.
Mr. David Dzivak, Deputy Regional Director, Northeastern, Defense 
Contract Audit Agency, member.

    Dated: June 17, 1998.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 98-16626 Filed 6-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dystell Jarrett, Appellant.

[67 NYS3d 625]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Iacov-etta, J.), rendered April 11, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The officers were justified in stopping defendant’s vehicle for a traffic infraction, after seeing him make a left turn without signaling *(see People v Robinson,*97 NY2d 341, 354 [2001]). In order to complete their investigation of the traffic infraction, it was reasonable for the officers to prevent defendant from leaving, and they “did not inordinately prolong the detention beyond what was reasonable under the circumstances to address the traffic infraction” *(see People v Edwards,*14 NY3d 741, 742 [2010]). Furthermore, in response to an officer’s initial question, defendant admitted that he had been driving with a suspended license, which was an additional offense requiring police investigation and action. Another officer then saw a bulge near defendant’s hip, which was not “unidentified,” as defendant asserts. Instead, the officer recognized the outline of a pistol grip, and this provided reasonable suspicion justifying a frisk *(see People v Henderson,*85 AD3d 663 [1st Dept 2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 953 [2011]).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no reason to overturn the credibility determinations of the jury, *535which could reasonably have rejected, as a complete fabrication, defendant’s claim of temporary and innocent possession of the weapon.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kapnick, Webber and Moulton, JJ.
ThesmiEOFTexas ^t1^^h("Tsc^ceivedin

COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS

&H APPEAL vtooSTttCoLTT oF AcPPEWJl 202015

In Oaosc Wo TO^&Tl AbeiAcosta.cierkx

"ToT^\bwbsyi®^3u(^s oP^fe C_CORT; r\

bs Lnso^rrcP-rhb mohbn Weoid Show

to^K^ ccor-V oV hppeaig •wCg^wJMSbTS

^P JUL 27 2015

2^WcfadLi^erRUmafiek^l^S^

QRuwaiCus- w^TM5^^^

ry

Ym. kwAeA. 'fefes5 ftxTiftuA ewro oPffls^
No. 09-10623.

#### Aubrey Stanley, Petitioner v. Randy Ollis.

562 U.S. 848, 131 S. Ct. 94,

178 L. Ed. 2d 59,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6029.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# DLA Land and Maritime website has a new look

/ Published Jan. 21, 2022
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
You may have noticed in the last few days that the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime public website, DLA Land and Maritime, has a new look. The change is part of an enterprise-wide website redesign which has been underway since early 2020.

                DLA Land and Maritime new homepage                            Whole website homepage screenshot.                            DLA Land and Maritime new homepage                            Whole website homepage screenshot.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Stefanie HauckVIRIN: 220119-D-D0441-001

The result is a streamlined, modern design with a more intuitive user experience for our customers, suppliers and industry partners, and will better serve the Warfighter now and into the future.

DLA’s primary focus was to reorganize our website content with the user experience in mind, making information easily accessible and well organized.

One of the most significant changes users will notice is the incorporation of a new navigation and website structure that makes products and services DLA Land and Maritime offers easier to find and discern.

This can be seen in the use of new and more intuitive accordion menus, which are drop down menus on each internal page, and breadcrumbs, which are a wayfinding tool used on websites.

There are also information boxes sprinkled throughout the design to draw a user’s attention to important content such as contact information for a particular product or service, system outage alerts and the like.

The latest news remains in the slideshow at the top and a as a list at the bottom along with the inclusion of a new video player and other important content.

Please take a look and let Public Affairs know what you think about the new look and navigation.

You can email us at DLA.Land.and.Maritime.Public.Affairs@dla.mil with comments or concerns.
#### Barbara Oldham et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and Waterworks A Joint Venture et al., Respondents.

[65 NYS3d 504]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d’Auguste, J.), entered on or about March 4, 2016, which granted the motion of defendants-respondents (respondents) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Respondents failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff Barbara Oldham tripped and fell in a pothole in the road. The affidavit submitted by respondents’ field engineer was insufficient since no facts were set forth by her to indicate that she possessed personal knowledge of the specific road construction work at issue *(see JMD Holding Corp. v Congress Fin. Corp.,*4 NY3d 373, 384-385 [2005]; *Onewest Bank, FSB v*
      *478
      *Michel,*143 AD3d 869 [2d Dept 2016]). The engineer also provided insufficient information that would authenticate the business records on which she relied in order to except such records from application of the hearsay rule *(see*CPLR 4518 [a]; *People v Kennedy,*68 NY2d 569, 579-580 [1986]; *Lodato v Greyhawk N. Am., LLC,*39 AD3d 494, 495 [2d Dept 2007]).

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Oing, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Distribution Management Services, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Leo Greenfield, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting 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 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.



|             |                                                                  
|------------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|June 8, 2007 | /s/ Leo Greenfield                                               
|             | Leo Greenfield                                                   
|             | CEO, principal executive officer
and principal accounting officer
No. 10-5979.

#### Jeffrey J. Dontigney, Petitioner v. O & G Industries, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 969, 131 S. Ct. 476,

178 L. Ed. 2d 302,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8082.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Connecticut denied.

Same case below, 121 Conn. App. 901, 992 A.2d 1234.
No. 10-5747.

#### William Rouser, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 966, 131 S. Ct. 465,

178 L. Ed. 2d 295,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7955.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
#### People v Dangerfield

4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1626 (Monroe)

denied 8/18/16 (Rivera, J.)
#### Masullo, Matter of, v City of Mount Vernon

2d Dept: 141 AD3d 95

denied
No. 10-153.

#### Thomas Paul Moyer, Vanessa Colleen Sturgeon, and Sonja R. Tune, Petitioners v. Oregon.

562 U.S. 895, 131 S. Ct. 326,

178 L. Ed. 2d 146,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6215.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 348 Or. 220, 230 P.3d 7.
No. 10-6525.

#### Richard L. Henderson, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 990, 131 S. Ct. 435,

178 L. Ed. 2d 338,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8268.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Executive Officer  Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)  of the Exchange Act

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Advanstar, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David W. Montgomery, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge,:

|By: |  | /s/DAVID W. MONTGOMERYDavid W. Montgomery
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|    |  | Date: August 14, 2003                                             |  | 

---

QuickLinks
#### Pscolka v. Boehme

04/20/2016

390 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1140
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16706]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-2494-001]


ESI Vansycle Partners, L.P.; Notice of Filing

June 18, 1998.

    Take notice that on June 5, 1998, ESI Vansycle Partners, L.O., 
(Vansycle), in compliance with the Commission's order issued on June 2, 
1998, submitted (1), a revised Code of Conduct with Respect to the 
Relationship between ESI Vansycle Partners, L.P., and its affiliates; 
and (2) an executed copy of the power purchase agreement filed with 
Vansycle's application for market based rate authority.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before June 29, 1998. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16706 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2013344EN.01004602.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/46

---

Action brought on 6 September 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-479/13)

2013/C 344/80

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by applying a VAT rate of 3 % to digital books (or electronic books), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fufil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98, 110 and 114 of the VAT directive, (1) read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and its implementing regulation; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by applying a VAT rate of 3 % to digital books (or electronic books), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fufil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98, 110 and 114 of the VAT directive, (1) read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and its implementing regulation; (2)

1

2

| — | order French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises a single plea in law in support of its action, alleging that, by subjecting the supply of electronic books to a super-reduced rate of 7 % from 1 January 2012, then of 5.5 % from 1 January 2013, the national legislation is not compatible with the VAT directive.

The Commission claims that under the first subparagraph of Article 98(2) of the VAT directive, reduced rates of VAT may be applied only to the supplies of goods and services referred to in Annex III to that directive. Category 6 of Annex III to the VAT directive does not mention the supply of digital books as being capable of being subject to a reduced rate of VAT. The Commission infers from that that the supply of electronic books must therefore be subject to the normal rate of VAT in accordance with Article 96 of the VAT directive. That is also confirmed, according to the Commission, by the second subparagraph of Article 98(2), which explicitly excludes electronically supplied services from the benefit of reduced rates of VAT. Finally, in support of its action, the Commission claims that the VAT Committee unanimously adopted, on 9 February 2011, guidelines according to which reduced rates of VAT do not apply to the supply of digital books.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for the VAT directive (OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1).

2

---
No. D-2516.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Michael Brian Gilland.

562 U.S. 811, 131 S. Ct. 400,

178 L. Ed. 2d 266,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7586.

October 4, 2010.

Michael Brian Gilland, of Towson, Maryland, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.40  


 
 

Amendment to Employment Agreement    
    


        This Amendment is made this 2nd day of December, 2004 by and between Interline Brands, Inc. ("Company"), whose address is 801 West Bay Street,
Jacksonville, Florida 32204 and Fred Bravo ("Executive"). 


        WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have previously entered into an Employment Agreement dated January 7, 2004, amended
September 27, 2004 (the "Agreement"); and, 


        WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to modify and amend the Agreement and certain provisions thereof. 



        NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the premises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Executive agree as follows: 



	1.
	Section 5
of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding with following new sentences at the end thereof. 





The
effectiveness of the following sentence of this Section 5 shall be contingent upon and shall only become effective upon the date of the closing of the Company's initial public offering of
the Company's Common Stock (the "Offering"). The Executive shall be entitled to receive a one time bonus on the date of the closing of the Offering from the Company equal to $185,000 paid in cash. 



	2.
	Except
as modified or amended herein, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. Nothing contained herein invalidates or shall impair or release any covenant, condition or
stipulation in the Agreement, and the same, except as herein modified and amended, shall continue in full force and effect.



	3.
	This
Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one Agreement. The parties
specifically agree that facsimile signatures are acceptable and permitted and shall be considered original and authentic. Each party executing this Agreement represents that such party has the full
authority and legal power to do so. 




        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, which is effective as of the date first above written. 



	

INTERLINE BRANDS, INC.	 	EXECUTIVE
	
By:	

 	
 	

By:	

 
	 	
	 	 	

	(Signature)	 	(Signature)
	

Name:	

 	
 	

Name:	

Fred Bravo
	 	
	 	 	 
	

Title:	

 	
 	

Title:	

 
	 	
	 	 	

	

Date:	

 	
 	

Date:	

 
	 	
	 	 	














QuickLinks


Amendment to Employment Agreement
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 11

- 0173 V

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

THERESA JENEROU, *

*

Petitioner

, *

* Filed: February 6, 2013

v. *

* Decision on Attorney’s

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Fees and Costs

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DECISION 1 (ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 2 a decision is sued

on September 11, 2012. On January 5, 2013 , the parties filed a s tipulation concerning attorney’s

fees and costs in this matter. The parties’ stipulation re quests a total payment o f $54, 206.40

, represent ing all attorney’s fees and costs available un der 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e). In accordance

wi th General Order #9, petitioner filed a statement indicating that petitioner incurred no

reim bursable costs in pursuit of her claim.

I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a reasonable basis

for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

300aa

- 15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount see ms reasonable and appropriate.

Accordingly, I h er eby award the total $54,206.40 as a lump sum in the form of a check

payable jointly to p etitioner and petitio ner’s counsel, Gil L. Daley, II

.

1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance

with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44

U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request

redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade secret or commercial or financial information

and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that are medic al files and similar files the disclosure of which would

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, “the entire” decision will be

available to the public. Id.

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 10 et seq . (2006).In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for review filed pursu ant to Appendix B of the

Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in

accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED

/s/ George L. Hastings, Jr.

George L. Hastings, Jr.

Special Master
Order entered April 13, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00201-CV

RICHARD RALEY AND RALEY HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellants

V.

DANIEL K. HAGOOD, P.C. AND FITZPATRICK HAGOOD SMITH & 

UHL, LLP, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-00390-B

ORDER

The supplemental reporter’s record in this case are overdue. By order dated 

February 26, 2020, we granted appellees’ second unopposed motion to file their 

brief and ordered Court Reporter Robin N. Washington to file, by March 16, 2020, 

the supplemental reporter’s record requested by appellees by letter dated January 8, 

2020. To date, Ms. Washington has not filed the reporter’s record nor otherwise 

corresponded with the Court about the reporter’s record.
So that this appeal can proceed, we ORDER Robin N. Washington to file 

the supplemental reporter’s record requested by appellees on January 8, 2020 

within TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order. We expressly CAUTION Ms. 

Washington failure to comply with this order WILL result in the Court taking such 

action as is necessary to have Ms. Washington comply with the Court’s orders, 

including an order that she not sit as a court reporter until she complies.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to:

Honorable Melissa Bellan

Presiding Judge

County Court at Law No. 2 

Robin N. Washington

Official Court Reporter

County Court at Law No. 2

All parties

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE