alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.1**
**Double Eagle Petroleum, Inc.**
**Restated Audit Committee Charter**
**Purpose**
The purpose of the Audit Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors (the “Board”)is to oversee the processes of accounting and financial reporting of the Company and the audits andfinancial statements of the Company.
**Committee Structure**
The Audit Committee shall consist of at least three directors, or such other number as theAudit Committee may have and remain in compliance with the rules and regulations promulgated by theNasdaq Stock Market. Each member of the Committee shall meet the independence and experiencerequirements of the Nasdaq Stock Market, Section 10A(m)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(the “Exchange Act”) and the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). All members of the Committee shall be able to read and understand fundamental financialstatements and at least one member of the Committee shall have past or current employmentexperience in finance or accounting, requisite professional certification in accounting, or anyother comparable experience or background which results in the individual’s financialsophistication, including having been a chief executive officer, chief financial officer, or othersenior officer with financial oversight responsibilities. The Board may, at any time and in itscomplete discretion, replace a Committee member.
**Meetings**
The Committee shall meet in executive session at least twice a year.
The Committee shall maintain minutes and other relevant documentation of all its meetings.
**Committee Authority and Responsibilities**
The Committee shall directly appoint, retain and compensate the Company’s independent auditor,subject to shareholder approval. The Committee has the sole authority to approve all auditengagement fees and terms, as well as all significant non-audit engagements with the independentauditor. The Committee shall be directly responsible for overseeing the work of the independentauditor (including resolution of disagreements between management and the independent auditorregarding financial reporting) for the purpose of preparing or issuing an audit report or relatedwork, and the independent auditor shall report directly to the Committee.
 

 

The Committee shall preapprove all auditing and non-auditing services of the independent auditor,subject to *de minimus*exceptions for other than audit, review, or attest services thatare approved by the Committee prior to completion of the audit. Alternatively, the engagement ofthe independent auditor may be entered into pursuant to pre-approved policies and procedures
Revised as of March 24, 2005
*****
# Morgart recognized for achievements as commander of San Diego distribution center, set to retire after 29 years of service

/ Published July 30, 2015
SAN DIEGO, California, 
Navy Supply Corps Capt. Andrew S. Morgart has been awarded the Defense Superior Service Medal for his achievements while serving as commander, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Diego, Calif. The award was one of many recognitions Morgart received in honor of his 29 years of service to the United States Navy.

During Morgart’s two-year tenure, he led an integrated team of over 230 civilian, military and contractor personnel in the management of 100,000 line items and $4.8 billion in inventory, making over 800,000 transactions annually.

While efficiently managing the $50 million contracted wholesale distribution center operation, Morgart analyzed the workload and inventory positioning strategy to forecast and make contract modifications supporting a 40 percent increase in the workload. He also led the team through the work surge to maximize performance while additional labor was put into place for future support.

Additionally, Morgart spearheaded the optimization of DLA Distribution’s first aviation retail division supporting a major Navy Aircraft Maintenance Depot. He led the analysis and process improvement over the aviation retail division meeting customer needs with improved efficiency. 

Morgart maintained the morale and performance of the workforce and exceeded customer expectations, while transitioning to improved processes and a transferred organizational structure achieving a 43 percent savings. 

Furthermore, Morgart drove the Navy warehouse operation of his command at Port Hueneme, Calif., to improved systems, better processes and expanded capability. He led the implementation of DLA warehouse system Distribution Standard System, greatly improving warehouse operations and putting the Navy warehouse operation in Port Hueneme on the path to becoming a DLA depot with the standards, processes, tools and training necessary.

“Drew is a dynamic, innovative leader, and his sustained superior performance and devotion to duty are noteworthy. His legacy will last far into the future,” said DLA Distribution commander Army Brig. Gen. Richard Dix.

On Friday, July 31, Morgart will be piped ashore for a final time during the DLA Distribution San Diego Change of Command.

DLA Distribution San Diego, Calif., performs standard distribution operations to include receipt, store, ship, and issue, with related functions to include transshipment, preservation, packaging, packing, and marking, Level 1 Sub-Safe Program, the Emergency Support Operations Center, Care of Supply in Storage, and reclassification. As a part of this mission, DLA Distribution San Diego, Calif., provides tailored distribution services through the Material Processing Center, which serves as a centralized receipt activity for afloat customers in the San Diego area.
#### Art Capital Group, LLC, Appellant, v Carlyle Investment Management LLC, Respondent.

[55 NYS3d 54]

*605Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff does not adequately plead a claim for breach of a confidentiality agreement. Plaintiff makes vague and conclu-sory statements that defendant must have used the confidential information it provided regarding the secured art loan business because defendant’s principal did not know much about the business prior to speaking with plaintiff and, within the two-year period, defendant set up a competitor. Such allegations are insufficient because plaintiff does not identify what confidential information was allegedly misused by defendant during the two year confidentiality period (see *Parker Waichman LLP v Squier, Knapp & Dunn Communications, Inc.,*138 AD3d 570 [1st Dept 2016]). Moreover, the confidentiality agreement expressly provided that defendant could do business with a competitor “now (i.e. at the time of the entry of the confidentiality agreement) or in the future,” and acknowledged that execution of the confidentiality agreement and receipt of the confidential information would not restrict or preclude such activities (see *Automobile Coverage, Inc. v American Intl. Group, Inc.,*42 AD3d 405, 407 [1st Dept 2007]).

Plaintiff also failed to adequately allege that there was any violation of the non-solicitation provision of the confidentiality agreement. Plaintiff did not identify any party that it introduced to defendant who then was solicited by defendant following termination of the transaction causing damages to plaintiff.

The court also properly dismissed the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim as duplicative. The allegations in the complaint were premised on the same conduct as the breach of contract claim and were “intrinsically tied to the damages allegedly resulting from a breach of the contract” *(Canstar v Jones Constr. Co.,*212 AD2d 452, 453 [1st Dept 1995]; *see MBIA Ins. Corp. v Merrill Lynch,*81 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Richter, J.P., Feinman, Webber and Kahn, JJ.
<PAGE>

                              [LETTERHEAD]


                                                                    Exhibit 23


                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
            

We hereby consent to the inclusion of our Independent Auditor's Report dated 
January 30, 1998 regarding the consolidated balance sheets of BSM Bancorp and 
Subsidiary as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated 
statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each 
of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1997, in the Form 10-KA 
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and included as 
Appendix F to the Form S-4 filed by BSM Bancorp with the SEC and the 
reference to our firm as experts.

                                           /s/ VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & CO., LLP


May 7, 1998
Laguna Hills, California
# Third quarter employees of the quarter

/ Published July 26, 2021

Defense Logistics Agency Energy Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Jimmy Canlas announced Energy’s third quarter, fiscal year 2021 military, civilian and strategic goals employees of the quarter.

Congratulations to the Energy members selected to compete at the DLA 3rd Quarter Military and Employee Recognition Program. 

**Field Grade Officer Category:**Army MAJ Francesco Parillo, DLA Energy Middle East 

**Company Grade Category:**Air Force Capt Joseph Richard, DLA Energy Europe and Africa

**Senior NCO Category:**Army SFC Elizabeth Grace, DLA Energy Middle East

**Junior NCO Category:**Army SSG Nicholas McCall, DLA Energy Europe and Africa

**Category B (GS/WG/WL 7-12):**Mr. Taylor Hart, DLA Energy Japan 

**Category C (GS13-15/WS):**Mr. Gregory Coleman, DLA Energy Americas 

**DLA Director's Strategic Goals Award Category:**

Mr. Michael J. Landry, DLA Energy Korea, Individual Category for lines of effort WarfighterAlways, Support the Nation, and Trusted Mission Partner

DLA Energy Americas East Suppliers Operations Team- Small Team Category:

Gabriel TarangoJohn StublarBenjamin BeadlesJoshua ZehlerChristopher WardRichard DicksonRoger SudtelgteNathan NicholsMichael AlessandroGary Simon

Good luck to all the Energy nominations in the next round at the enterprise level!
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**     We have issued our reports dated September 6, 2005, accompanying the consolidated financialstatements and schedule, and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting included in the Annual Report of Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. and subsidiaries onForm 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference ofsaid reports in the Registration Statements of Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. and subsidiaries on FormsS-8 (File No. 33-19288, effective December 23, 1987; File No. 33-26065, effective February 18,1988; File No. 33-32984, effective January 12, 1990; File No. 33-38914, effective February 8, 1991;File No. 33-38914, effective September 26, 1994 and File No. 333-18515, effective December 20,1996) and Forms S-3 (File No. 333-60987, effective August 21, 1998, File No. 333-32144, effectiveMarch 10, 2000, File No. 333-58506, effective April 23, 2001, File No. 333-65580, effective August3, 2001 and File No. 333-73796, effective November 20, 2001)./s/ Grant Thornton LLPMinneapolis, Minnesota
#### People v Decker

3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1113 (Montgomery)

denied 8/8/16 (Fahey, J.)
No. 10-5593.

#### Charles T. McIntosh, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 930, 131 S. Ct. 324,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7225.

178 L. Ed. 2d 210,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 373 Fed. Appx. 597.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Mines Management, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| \s\ James H. Moore      |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| James H. Moore          |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| November 9, 2009   |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MinesManagement, Inc. and will be retained by Mines Management, Inc andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
EXHIBIT 23.1

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors,
DRS Technologies, Inc.:


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 2-87303, No. 2-99986, No. 333-14487, No. 33-33125, No. 33-42886 and No.
333-69751) on Form S-8 and (No. 33-64641, and No. 333-04929) on Form S-3 of DRS
Technologies, Inc. of our reports dated May 18, 2000, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of DRS Technologies, Inc. as of March 31, 2000 and
1999, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity
and comprehensive earnings, and cash flows and related consolidated financial
statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended March
31, 2000, which reports appear or are incorporated by reference in the March 31,
2000 Annual Report on Form 10-K of DRS Technologies, Inc.



/s/ KPMG LLP


Short Hills, New Jersey
June 28, 2000
No. 10-5096.

#### Troy Antoine Hopkins, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 903, 131 S. Ct. 240,

178 L. Ed. 2d 160,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6360.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 370 Fed. Appx. 122.
# DLA Troop Support says goodbye to civilian retiree

/ Published Sept. 28, 2020
Philadelphia, 
The Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support said goodbye to a long-time civilian employee during a retirement ceremony September 25 in Philadelphia. 

Robert Krajci of Procurement Process Support retired after 36 years of federal service. 

DLA Troop Support Chief of Staff Robert Ratner presided over the ceremony and thanked Krajci for his service to the warfighters throughout his career.

“As a retired Air Force Colonel, it’s people like you that allowed me to sleep at night [while I served],” Ratner said. 

Ratner presented Krajci with a certificate of retirement, DLA Troop Support mementos and a commander’s coin. A certificate of appreciation was presented to Krajci’s wife, Kimberly. 

Krajci, who officially retired in August, started his career at the Defense Personnel Support Center as a member of the Competition Advocate’s Office. Throughout his career, he provided guidance on how to prepare justification and approval documents to Troop Support procurement personnel. Prior to his retirement, he was involved with procurements in support of the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Krajci retired as a procurement analyst in the Pricing and Strategy Division of the Procurement Process Support Office. 

“Thirty-six years can go by quickly, especially when you’re doing good work, working with great people, and working with a great team,” Krajci said. “I want to say thank you to everybody along the way. After a month of retirement, I can sincerely say retirement is great.”
DLA Installation Management Richmond site director visits Pennsylvania, reviewing inventory and future requirements
 
  By Support Operations Branch, Installation Operations Division, DLA Installation Management Richmond
  David Gibson, site director for Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond, Virginia, traveled to DLA Aviation’s Industrial Plant Equipment Services Division in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, May 9 – 12 to conduct a review of inventory and requirements for an upcoming general equipment compliance visit from DLA Headquarters later this fiscal year. DLA Installation Management Richmond employees have had to conduct their annual reviews virtually, primarily covering records adjustments, for the last two years due to travel restrictions put in place by DLA Headquarters to help stop the spread of the coronavirus. “Overall, the visit was very productive and insightful,” said Gibson, adding that it was good to be able to see the forward site teams again in person. “This visit to Mechanicsburg was the first of many to follow and will help our Operations Support Branch teams be very successful for future compliance visits at different DLA Aviation sites.” IPESD is part of the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Engineering Directorate and the federal government’s only industrial plant equipment maintenance, repair and overhaul facility in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. During the visit, Gibson spoke with Brian Heath, IPESD manager, who provided him an overview of the facility’s operations where he learned how installation management can better support their requirements.  The tour included IPESD’s rebuild process, in-house design and manufacture capabilities, recently completed projects and a demonstration of their new state-of-the-art computer numerical control Gantry Milling Machine. The machine serves three functions: it cuts metals in a 3-dimensional fashion, is a surface grinder, and uses laser hardening technology to harden surfaces to ensure smooth operations between matting surfaces. Operations Support Branch teams will be visiting DLA Aviation sites before the end of the current fiscal year to include San Diego; Jacksonville, Florida; Ogden, Utah; Robins, Georgia, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Teams will conduct a 100% inventory of government equipment assets and orders and identify any future requirements whether new or life cycle replacement through fiscal 2026. Gibson said the visits will also include discussions of potential inventory issues and DLA’s Five- Year Equipment Plan which documents inventory in preparation for enterprise compliance visits.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-113094 on FormS-8, Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-113094 onForm S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-139475 on Form S-8, RegistrationStatement No. 333-119928 on Form S-3, and Post Effective Amendment No. 5 toForm S-1 in Registration Statement No. 333-115816 on Form S-3 of our reportdated October 12, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements andfinancial statement schedule as it relates to the year ended June 30, 2005 ofBioenvision, Inc. and subsidiaries appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Bioenvision, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2007.
| /s/ Deloitte & Touche  LLP |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Parsippany, New  Jersey        |
| September 7,  2007             |

 

----
#### Burlington Insurance Company, Appellant, v Aisyrk Co., Inc., et al., Defendants.

[61 NYS3d 89]

In an action pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law article 10, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated June 30, 2016, which denied its motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In October 2015, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants alleging that the defendant Aisyrk Co., Inc. (hereinafter Aisyrk), was a successor corporation to Excel II Construction Corporation (hereinafter Excel), which had failed to make payments due under insurance policies issued by the plaintiff. The complaint further alleged that the defendant Bogdan Reczko was the chief executive officer and the sole shareholder of both corporations, and that Reczko had fraudulently transferred assets from Excel to Aisyrk in order to avoid Excel’s contractual obligations and other liabilities. One of Excel’s alleged liabilities was a judgment entered in the Supreme Court, Kings County, on April 11, 2014, in favor of the plaintiff and against Excel in the sum of $118,198.06, for Excel’s nonpayment of sums due under the insurance policies.

According to an affidavit of service sworn to on November 4, 2015, Aisyrk was served with process in this action pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306. A separate affidavit of service sworn to on December 22, 2015, indicated that Reczko was served at his residence in New Jersey by delivery of the summons and complaint to a person of suitable age and discretion and by the subsequent mailing of the summons and complaint to his New Jersey residence. After the defendants failed to appear in the action or answer the complaint, the plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment against them in the *778amount of the prior judgment, together with interest, costs, and disbursements. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

Although the plaintiff demonstrated that Aisyrk was duly-served with process pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 and that Reczko was duly served pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) and 313, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for leave to enter a default judgment against them. In support of its motion, the plaintiff failed to submit the statutorily required proof of compliance with CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (i) as to Aisyrk *(see Bank of N.Y. v Willis,*150 AD3d 652 [2017]; *Bunch v Dollar Budget, Inc.,*12 AD3d 391 [2004]; *Schilling v Maren Enters.,*302 AD2d 375 [2003]). Moreover, although the plaintiff asserts that an additional copy of the summons was mailed to Reczko, it failed to submit the statutorily required proof of compliance with CPLR 3215 (g) (3) (i) as to Reczko *(see Bono v DuBois,*121 AD3d 932 [2014]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention need not be reached in light of our determination.

Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Cohen and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.