alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001064048
<NAME> DIAMOND BRANDS OPERATING CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,028
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,264)
<INVENTORY>                                     15,764
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,501
<PP&E>                                          40,958
<DEPRECIATION>                                (22,017)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  85,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           95,947
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   (112,377)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    85,068
<SALES>                                         73,044
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                73,044
<CGS>                                           50,397
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,397
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,706
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,601
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (660)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (50)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (610)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (795)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,405)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### 46 Warren, LLC, Appellant, v Holly Lynch, Respondent.

[64 NYS3d 640]

Order, Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered July 23, 2015, which reversed a judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (James E. d’Auguste, J.), entered September 17, 2014, awarding petitioner landlord unpaid rent, late charges and interest, upon an order that granted petitioner summary judgment on its claim for unpaid rent, and dismissing respondent tenant’s affirmative defense and counterclaim *548for breach of the warranty of habitability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While a warranty of habitability will not be implied in a commercial lease *(Rivera v JRJ Land Prop. Corp.,*27 AD3d 361, 364 [1st Dept 2006]; *see*Real Property Law § 235-b), respondent does not rely on an implied warranty. She cites the express terms of the subject lease, which was prepared by petitioner, which permitted only residential use, and included petitioner’s warranty of habitability and agreement to provide certain services, such as heat and hot water, enforceable by the warranty of habitability. The parties acknowledge that they agreed that respondent could use the premises for commercial purposes, setting up the apartment as a home office. However, petitioner neither sought reformation of the lease nor demonstrated “unusual circumstances” that would relieve it of its duty to abide by the lease terms *(see George Backer Mgt. Corp. v Acme Quilting Co.,*46 NY2d 211, 218 [1978]).

Concur— Richter, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Oing and Singh, JJ.
# Coast Guard leaders visit Troop Support to discuss uniforms, challenges, opportunities

/ Published July 7, 2023
PHILADELPHIA, 
Fielding current and future Coast Guard uniforms were among key topics discussed by Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Clothing and Textiles leaders and Coast Guard representatives during a visit to the organization June 29 in Philadelphia.

C&T leaders welcomed the Coast Guard’s Deputy Chief of Logistics Lee Plowden and Chief of the Personnel Support Division Coast Guard Capt. Shanell King, and provided briefings including a supply chain overview, fabric and vendor update, and new item introduction topics.

“It’s nice to have our customers come on ‘campus’ from time to time,” said C&T Director Air Force Col. Matthew Harnly. “It gives us a great face-to-face opportunity with our team of leading experts in the field of what we do; whether on the acquisition side, getting the material for you, or helping with execution of your routes of distribution.”

Honest discussions on issues and opportunities were key themes of the visit.

“I’m looking forward to a full and open dialogue today,” C&T Director of Customer Operations Bruce Carson said.

Recent C&T and Coast Guard collaboration includes successfully standing up the USCG Training Center Cape May, New Jersey in 2021 and working through industry changes affecting USCG uniforms with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS; chemicals that resist grease, oil, water, and heat, Carson said.

Over the past 18 to 24 months C&T and the Coast Guard have worked together to overcome challenges, Harnly said.

Plowden concurred and addressed the need for continuous teamwork moving forward.

“One of the things I thought about in putting this [meeting] together is we’re overcoming one big challenge but how do we prepare for the next challenge of this new uniform we’re looking to field, so we want to make sure in all of our teams we set the conditions for how we approach that,” Plowden said.

C&T leaders explained acquisition processes, including new item introduction procedures and technical requirements. The meeting provided an opportunity for problem solving and future planning.

“I am so happy to be here, the more that I learn about what you guys do and how you service us and support us, the more appreciative I am of the phone calls that we’ve had out of the blue and you guys are ‘on it’ and supporting us and I cannot thank you enough for all your support,” King said.
No. 10-380.

#### Terra XXI, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. AG Acceptance Corporation, et al.

562 U.S. 982, 131 S. Ct. 436,

178 L. Ed. 2d 324,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8219.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, denied.
# Employee Spotlight: Tehfano Fair

/ Published Sept. 22, 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.*

**Name:** Tehfano Fair

**Organization:** DLA Aviation at Oklahoma City

**Years of service:** 5 years

**What is your job title and what do you do specifically?** As a material handler, I examine incoming parts and corresponding paperwork to verify the stock number, quantity, condition, and destination of the material. I process the necessary paperwork associated with the movement of all material. I also select, store, stack, and palletize items based on their use, size, shape, and configuration.

**What do you like most about your job?** I’ve been blessed to work with people that I also know outside of work. I’ve built new relationships while working for DLA, but it’s nothing like working with people you already considered family.

**What is your fondest memory of working for DLA?** My fondest memories are attending command sponsored events. It’s been nice getting together with the other people in my organization. It’s good to know that there are more people going through the same motions as you and you’re not in this alone.

**What aspect of your job give you the most personal satisfaction?** The aspect of my job that gives me the most personal satisfaction is working as a group to accomplish the mission. I’m blessed to work with a group of people who have the same mentality. No matter what or whose task it is, we all know it won’t be done alone.

**What advice would you have given yourself 10 years ago?** I would give myself several pieces of advice: “Don’t be afraid of the unknown,” “Nothing changes if nothing changes” and “Be careful who you call your friend.”

**What is the most surprising thing others don’t know about you?** Most people would be surprised to know that I don’t eat sweets of any kind.

**What are some of your passions outside of work?** My passions outside of work are producing music, fishing, cooking, and golfing.

**If you could pick a personal motto, what would it be?** I have two personal mottos: “Be the change you wish to see in the world” and “This too shall pass.”

**Who is the most influential person in your life?** The most influential person in my life is my mother, Darlene Lee.

**If you could start your life over again, what would you do differently? I would** listen to all the older folks who came before me. They were right.

**What are five things you can’t live without?** The five things I can’t live without are my earbuds, being in a music studio, a grill, a phone, and University of Oklahoma Football.

**What is your favorite movie?** My favorite movie is Scarface.

**What type of music do you enjoy?** I love all music.
#### In the Matter of Jacqueline Lipscomb, Respondent, v Bobby G. Lipscomb, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 775]

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted. (Appeal from order of Family Court, Erie County, Maxwell, J. — Support.) Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Kehoe, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report on form 10KSB of Diapulse
Corporation of America (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I Jesse
Ross, President of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
added by Section 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.       To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
         of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the
         Report.


Date: March 31, 2005                      by: /s/ JESSE ROSS
                                          ---------------------
                                          Jesse Ross
                                          President
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                  EXHIBIT 11

                              MODERN CONTROLS, INC.

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE


                                        Three Months Ended             Six Months Ended
                                              June 30,                     June 30,
                                     ------------------------     -------------------------
                                       1997           1996           1997           1996
                                    ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
<S>                                 <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>      
PRIMARY

Average shares outstanding           4,275,777      4,273,054      4,275,250      4,322,531

Net effect of dilutive stock
options - based on the
treasury stock method                   35,440         25,914         31,108         29,371
                                    ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------

Total                                4,311,217      4,298,968      4,306,358      4,351,902
                                    ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========


Net income                          $  884,400     $  768,061     $1,844,657     $1,468,308
                                    ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========


Primary per share amounts           $     0.21     $     0.18     $     0.43     $     0.34
                                    ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========



FULLY DILUTED

Average shares outstanding           4,275,777      4,273,054      4,275,250      4,322,531

Net effect of dilutive stock
options - based on the
treasury stock method                   52,817         27,856         37,897         29,371
                                    ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------

Total                                4,328,594      4,300,910      4,313,147      4,351,902
                                    ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========


Net income                          $  884,400     $  768,061     $1,844,657     $1,468,308
                                    ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========


Fully diluted per share amounts     $     0.20     $     0.18     $     0.43     $     0.34
                                    ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========

</TABLE>
# C_2014421EN.01005402.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/54

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-9/13) (1)

1

((Civil service - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Action out of time - Action manifestly inadmissible))

2014/C 421/76

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to set off the sum corresponding to the costs it was ordered to pay by the General Court in Case T-176/04 against the greater sum which the applicant is required to pay pursuant to the order in Case T-241/03.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013, p. 20.

1

---
#### In the Matter of Pauline M. Clark, as Executrix of William J. Clark, Deceased, Petitioner, v Town of New Hartford Department of Buildings and Grounds et al., Respondents.

[769 NYS2d 434]

CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court by an order of Supreme Court, Oneida County (Grow, J.), entered June 12, 2000, seeking to annul a determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights finding that respondent Town of New Hartford Depart*1454ment of Buildings and Grounds (Town) did not unlawfully discriminate against petitioner’s decedent on the basis of age is supported by substantial evidence *(see Mittl, Ophthalmologist v New York State Div. of Human Rights,*100 NY2d 326, 331 [2003]). Even assuming, arguendo, that decedent established a prima facie case of age discrimination, we conclude that the Town came forward with “legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its employment decision [s]” *(Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v State Div. of Human Rights,*66 NY2d 937, 938 [1985]; *see Matter of Laverack & Haines v New York State Div. of Human Rights,*88 NY2d 734, 738-739 [1996]; *Bockino v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*224 AD2d 471, 472 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 805 [1996]). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.
#### Oswald Jeffers, Appellant, v Bruce L. Stein, Public Administrator of Kings County, Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Alice Parker Gordon, Also Known as Ales Parker Gordon, Deceased, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[60 NYS3d 63]

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine claims to real property, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated June 3, 2015, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendants Bruce L. Stein, Public Administrator of Kings, temporary administrator of the estate of Alice Parker Gordon, also known as Ales Parker Gordon, and Cecil D. Wor-rell, administrator of the estate of James Gordon, and against him dismissing the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action in the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds ‘warranted by the facts,’ bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony” *(DePaula v State of New York,*82 AD3d 827, 827 [2011], quoting Northern *Westchester Professional Park Assoc, v Town of Bedford,*60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; *see Samuel Yu v Fortuna Design & Constr., Inc.,*106 AD3d 732 [2013]). Similarly, “[w]here the trial court’s findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses, deference is owed to the trial court’s credibility determinations” *755
      *(Bennett v Atomic Prods. Corp.,*132 AD3d 928, 930 [2015]; *see Neiss v Fried,*127 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2015]). Here, contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the evidence adduced at trial supports the Supreme Court’s determination dismissing the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action in the complaint. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the court’s determination.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court.

Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
# Agpalza assumes command of DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM

/ Published July 27, 2023
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Army Col. Michelle Agpalza accepted the reins of Defense Logistics Agency CENTCOM & SOCOM in a change of command ceremony July 27 at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

Agpalza replaces Army Col. Gerald Acosta and is returning to DLA via the National Defense University. She previously worked in the DLA Logistics Operations Business Integration Branch and the Agency Synchronization and Operations Center.

“Thank you for what you did and what you’re going to continue to do. I’m excited to be part of a tremendous team,” she said.  

                230727-D-VG904-025                            New Defense Logistics Agency CENTCOM & SOCOM Commander Army Col. Michelle Agpalza, far left, waits for the unit flag to be passed to her from DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM Senior Enlisted Leader Army Master Sgt. Kalie Brown, middle left, outgoing commander Army Col. Gerald Acosta, middle right, and DLA Logistics Operations Director Navy Rear Adm. Doug Noble, right, during a change of command ceremony July 27 at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. Photo by Tom Gagnier, U.S. Central Command            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Tom GagnierVIRIN: 230727-D-VG904-025Acosta, who arrived at DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM in June 2021 as DLA was completing its drawdown in Afghanistan, thanked DLA Logistics Operations Director Navy Rear Adm. Doug Noble for his leadership.

“We had one hard mission set after another, but your patience and the way you delivered your advice and born wisdom pushed us through,” he said, also thanking DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM employees for their expertise and dedication.

CENTCOM remains a critical and active theater, Noble said after passing the unit flag from Acosta to Agpalza. He noted that commanders are responsible for everything that happens in an organization, and service members and civilian look to commanders to provide intent to move forward.

“Your team, Col. Acosta, improved mission command throughout the development and optimization of the DLA support team for the region to provide better customer support to the warfighters,” Noble said. “Your focus and dedication have increased support across the AOR, with sustainment decisions being made at the speed of relevance.”

Agpalza is a native of Kailua, Hawaii. She started her career as an enlisted soldier before earning her commission and joining the Army’s Chemical Corps in the Hawaii Army Patrol Guard. She went active duty in 2001 and later served in the CENTCOM AOR while deployed to Qatar as an operations officer for the 401st Army Field Support Battalion.

“I’m confident in Michelle’s track record,” Noble said. “Her impressive work history will suit her for the challenges and opportunities that this command will bring.”
Form of Stock Option Grant Notice






Form of

Stock Option Grant Notice







[NAME FIELD]

[ADDRESS FIELD]

[CITY, STATE, ZIP FIELD]




Stock Option Notice




Congratulations!  Dollar General Corporation’s Board of Directors has awarded you the option to purchase shares of Dollar General common stock as follows:




	


Grant Date

	


# Options

	


Option Price

	


Grant Type

	


Expiration Date


	 	 	 	 	








Plan Information:  This non-qualified stock option has been granted pursuant to the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and restated on June 2, 2003, and modified on August 26, 2003, and is subject to all the restrictions, conditions and other terms contained in that Plan (See the Prospectus for a summary of the Plan.  A copy is enclosed if this is your first Dollar General stock option grant.)




Vesting Information:  You must be employed on each scheduled vesting date to be entitled to this option.  This grant will vest in increments of ___% of the represented shares as follows: 

 

____% will vest on [date field]

____% will vest on [date field]

____% will vest on [date field]

____% will vest on [date field]




Expiration Information:  This option is not exercisable after the expiration date set forth above, subject to earlier termination as provided in the Plan.




General Information:  Please review the enclosed Frequently Asked Questions. For additional information, contact the Stock Services Line at _______________, select option ___ followed by option ___ -OR- log on to your account at: 




[INSERT CURRENT WEB ADDRESS]




If you are a new Dollar General optionee, your Personal Identification Number (PIN) for the website, as well as the Stock Services Line, will be mailed to you under separate cover.  Your user id for the stock option website is your 9 digit Social Security number.
2017-0488.

#### State v. Jackson.

Mahoning App. No. 15 MA 0126, 2017-Ohio-1296.
No. 09-10967.

#### Peter Halloran, Petitioner v. Mark J. Bennett, Attorney General of Hawaii, et al.

562 U.S. 857, 131 S. Ct. 126,

178 L. Ed. 2d 76,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6072.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 791.