alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA Aviation strengthening future support to the Navy through new initiative

/ Published Jan. 27, 2023
RICHMOND, Va., 
DLA Aviation Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Sean Tyler is launching the execution phase of DLA Aviation’s Naval Industrial Alignment Campaign.

He made the announcement during a kickoff meeting of the NIAC held in the Frank B. Lotts Conference Center on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Jan. 17.

Tyler said the goal of the campaign is to increase materiel availability to Navy’s Fleet Readiness Centers so the Navy can better meet its production commitments, decrease materiel costs, and increase its buying power in support of the warfighter.

DLA Aviation has industrial support activities (ISAs) co-located with Navy Fleet Readiness Centers in San Diego, California, Jacksonville, Florida and Cherry Point, North Carolina. Fleet Readiness Centers conduct maintenance, repair, and overhaul of Navy aircraft, engines, components, and support equipment.  Each year roughly 6,500 Sailors and Marines, along with more than 9,500 depot artisans at the FRCs overhaul and repair nearly 1,000 aircraft, thousands of engines and several hundred thousand components valued at approximately $4 billion.

Navy Capt. Ron Hoak, division chief for DLA Aviation’s Customer Operations Directorate’s Navy Customer Facing Division said during fiscal 2022, COMFRC launched a transformation program as one of the six pillars of the Naval Sustainment System-Aviation initiative. The goal was to increase organic productivity by at least 25% and return $450 million in buying power to the naval aviation enterprise by delivering world class service to the fleet by increasing the volume of organic repair, significantly improving on-time delivery, and decreasing total repair cost.

To help COMFRC reach its goals, Hoak said DLA gathered and analyzed available data, implemented a strategic shift to industrial prioritization, including standing up the Navy Industrial Support Branch and came up with three lines of efforts.

The materiel availability line of effort focuses on increasing work order effectiveness through initiatives targeting the root causes of misses. These include improving logistics processes and distribution agreements, reevaluating how DLA incorporates Naval demand into the wholesale buying plan, and refreshing acquisition advice code designations and concept of operations to ensure they are continuously updated as required.

Next is the materiel affordability line of effort. Its goal is reducing piece part unit cost growth by moving more national item identification numbers onto long term contracts and engaging top suppliers in whole-of-portfolio negotiations for additional cost growth reduction.

The final line of effort is ISA standardization and efficiency. Its end state is reducing indirect materiel cost by rolling out efficient, standardized processes and system enhancements across ISA sites, and incorporating sites’ current best practices wherever possible.

“This effort is a top priority for DLA aviation in fiscal 23. I look forward to sharing the successes of this work in the months ahead,” said Tyler.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.21

                               ABERCROMBIE & FITCH

                                   STOCK AWARD
                             STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
                           ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

This Stock Option Agreement is entered into by and between Abercrombie & Fitch
(the "Company"), and the Director of the Company whose name appears below (the
"Director") in order to set forth the terms and conditions of Options granted to
the Director under The Abercrombie & Fitch Co. 2003 Stock Plan for Non-Associate
Directors (the "2003 Directors' Stock Plan") (The "Plan").

         DIRECTOR'S NAME:

         SOCIAL SECURITY #:

         ADDRESS:

         # OPTIONS:

         DATE OF GRANT:

         GRANT PRICE:

         OPTION TYPE:                NON-QUALIFIED

         VESTING:                    Shares vest in one year

Subject to the attached Terms and Conditions and the terms of the Plan, which
are incorporated herein by reference, the Company hereby grants to the Director
Options to purchase shares of Common Stock of the Company, as outlined above.

The Company and the Director have executed this Agreement as of the Date of
Grant set forth above.

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH                        DIRECTOR

_____________________________________      _____________________________________
Michael Jeffries, Chairman and Chief
 Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            3,324
<SECURITIES>                                     15,873
<RECEIVABLES>                                    13,949
<ALLOWANCES>                                        716
<INVENTORY>                                       8,123
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 41,203
<PP&E>                                           46,594
<DEPRECIATION>                                   35,373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   56,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            16,646
<BONDS>                                             161
<COMMON>                                          1,342
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                       39,667
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     56,129
<SALES>                                          61,403
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 61,403
<CGS>                                            46,885
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    46,885
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    211
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   87
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3,872
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1,230
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2,642
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2,642
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      2.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      2.26

        

</TABLE>
# DLA Troop Support hosts interagency Subsistence summit

/ Published Oct. 22, 2020
PHILADELPHIA, 
Leaders from throughout the Department of Defense came together to discuss military food service support during a three-day summit held at the Defense Logistics Agency Headquarters in Fort Belvoir, Va.

DLA Troop Support’s Subsistence supply chain hosted the 2020 Joint Subsistence Policy Board and the Class I Global Summit held Oct. 13 to 15.

The two events included participation from general officers and senior executives from all services, service component commands, combatant command staffs and other key members of the joint logistics enterprise.

“It was an honor to host the Joint Subsistence Policy Board and Class I Global Summit,” said Army Brig. Gen. Gavin A. Lawrence, DLA Troop Support commander, who served as the chair for the event. “Thanks to the leadership who joined us from across the joint logistics enterprise, we were able to share ideas to improve nutrition and food service support to our service members. The event also allowed us another opportunity to improve DLA’s ability to meet global subsistence requirements across the joint warfighter community.”

The objectives of the event were to provide a global support picture, elevate the priority of planning efforts and assess DLA’s readiness to meet global requirements of the Joint Warfighter community, said Subsistence Director Army Col. Eric McCoy.

The Joint Subsistence Advisory Board holds monthly telephone conference calls to discuss immediate issues, while the JSPB usually meets in-person twice a year for strategic planning, John Sheehan, Subsistence Director of Customer Operations said.

Last year, DLA Troop support sent about 20 people from Subsistence to the summit, McCoy said, and there were probably 40 to 50 people in the main conference room at headquarters. This year, the event was a hybrid, with some participating remotely and a minimal number of people attending in-person.

“This year, being able to do it as a hybrid, we were able to have senior representation at DLA Headquarters with appropriate social distancing, which allowed for sidebar and social interactions,” he added.

The JSPB and Global Summit, two separate events, are held together for a reason, Sheehan said.

“It allows people to participate because you go from strategy and policy to planning and operational plans in combatant commands, and more,” Sheehan said. “It’s important to have an event which brings the COCOMS together and hear the different input.”

McCoy concurs with the success of holding the events together.

 “There’s a lot of hard work to make sure warfighters are properly fed around the world,” he said. “All in all, it was a great event.”
No. 10-6200.

#### Damon Emanuel Elliott, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 957, 131 S. Ct. 483,

178 L. Ed. 2d 283,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7865.

October 12, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed. See Rule *28439.8.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.

Same case below, 373 Fed. Appx. 326.
No. 09-10737.

#### Jonathan Daniel D’Arcy, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 850, 131 S. Ct. 104,

178 L. Ed. 2d 64,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6259.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 48 Cal. 4th 257, 106 Cal. Rptr. 3d 459, 226 P.3d 949.
No. 10-5202.

#### Adan Ernesto Guzman, Petitioner v. Washington.

562 U.S. 909, 131 S. Ct. 257,

178 L. Ed. 2d 171,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6958.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2, denied.

Same case below, 151 Wash. App. 1031.
# C_2013274EN.01001501.xml

| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 18 July 2013 — Barbara Huber v Manfred Huber

(Case C-408/13)

2013/C 274/26

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Barbara Huber

Applicant:

Defendant: Manfred Huber

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Whether it is compatible with Article 3(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, (1)

1

if it is provided in the first sentence of Paragraph 28(1) of the Gesetzes zur Geltendmachung von Unterhaltsansprüchen im Verkehr mit ausländischen Staaten (Auslandsunterhaltsgesetz — AUG),

that, if a party concerned does not have his or her habitual residence in Germany, the court which is to rule exclusively on applications in maintenance cases falling under Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 is the Local Court which has jurisdiction for the seat of the Higher Regional Court in whose area of jurisdiction the defendant or creditor has his or her habitual residence?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paris Soto, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 585]

Judgment, Supreme *664Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered April 9, 2015, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.
#### Albert Abayev et al., Respondents, v Jaypson Jewelry Manufacturing Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[769 NYS2d 563]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Jaypson Jewelry Manufacturing Corp., J. Posner & Sons, Inc., doing business as Jaypson Jewelry, and Bernard Posner appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated January 24, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*549The infant plaintiff was working in a jewelry factory operated by the defendant Alex Kateau on premises subleased from the appellants. He was severely burned when a torch he was using ignited a container of alcohol on his work bench. The plaintiffs subsequently commenced this action against the appellants, Alex Kateau, doing business as World Wide Casters, and Alex Kateau, individually.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Although we disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the appellants exercised supervision and control over the infant plaintiffs work, they may be liable under Labor Law § 200 and based on common-law negligence due to their actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition on the premises which caused the infant plaintiffs injuries, regardless of whether they supervised his work *(see Blanco v Oliveri,*304 AD2d 599 [2003]). The appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing as a matter of law that they did not have notice of the allegedly dangerous condition on the premises *(see Ford v Caliendo & Sons,*305 AD2d 368, 369 [2003]).

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the appellants established as a matter of law that the infant plaintiff was not their employee, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding their claim of “dual employment” *(see generally Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp.,*78 NY2d 553 [1991]). However, the appellants’ potential liability under Labor Law § 200 and based on common-law negligence is predicated on their status as the lessees of the premises and the duty they owed to Kateau’s employees who were working there *(see Sinzieri v Expositions, Inc.,*270 AD2d 332 [2000]). Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
  **STATEMENT
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
        TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE**
  Pursuant
        to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Thomas
        Granville, Chief Executive Officer of Axion Power International, Inc (the
        “Company”), hereby certifies that:
 The
          Company’s Form 10-KSB/A Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the
          “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  The
          information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
          the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/
                  Thomas GranvilleThomas
                  Granville, Chief Executive OfficerDated:
                  May 12, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sharife Moses, Appellant.

[65 NYS3d 15]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J. at suppression hearing; Daniel P. FitzGerald, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered January 8, 2015, as amended January 9, 2015, convicting defendant of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first and second degrees and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 40 years to life, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of directing that all sentences be served concurrently, resulting in a new aggregate term of 25 years to life, and otherwise affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress a lineup identification. The lineup was not unduly suggestive. Defendant and the fillers were all reasonably similar in appearance, and there was no substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out *(see People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], *cert denied*498 US 833 [1990]). The difference in height between defendant and almost all of the fillers was not so significant as to create a risk of misidentification, and, in any event, the lineup was conducted so as to limit any effect of a height differential *(see People v Johnson,*306 AD2d 214 [1st Dept 2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 621 [2003]).

Defendant’s challenge to the content of the court’s instructions regarding corroboration of accomplice testimony is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the better practice would have been to read the CJI without augmentation since the charge was revised to accord with Reome; however the instructions, read as a whole, conveyed the appropriate principles *(see People v Reome,*15 NY3d 188 [2010]). Similarly, we reject defendant’s claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the instructions *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]); accordingly, we do not *477find that the lack of preservation should be excused on the ground of ineffective assistance.

While the court lawfully imposed a consecutive sentence for the conviction under Penal Law § 265.03 (3), we nevertheless, in our discretion run all the sentences concurrently.

Concur— Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Oing, JJ.
No. 09-11139.

#### Clarence Noble Jackson, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 863, 131 S. Ct. 146,

178 L. Ed. 2d 88,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6656.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 55.
No. 10-5974.

#### Jason DeJear, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 942, 131 S. Ct. 363,

178 L. Ed. 2d 234,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7551.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 813.
No. 10-5367.

#### Charles K. Wallace, Petitioner v. Louisiana.

562 U.S. 917, 131 S. Ct. 284,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7079.

178 L. Ed. 2d 187,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 31 So. 3d 1059.
Greatness in the struggle: speaker encourages women to push through challenges
 
  By Natalie Skelton, DLA Aviation Public Affairs
  In recognition of Women’s History Month, Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity, in conjunction with its Engineering Directorate, welcomed Terri Dickerson, director, Civil Rights Directorate, U.S. Coast Guard, to deliver a presentation on “Celebrating Milestones, Personal and Professional, Reached by Women” March 11, in the Lotts Conference Center on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia.  Dickerson was welcomed to the stage by Cathy Contreras, acquisition executive, DLA Aviation. Contreras opened the presentation with a note about the year’s historical importance on two fronts.  “2020 marks the 75th anniversary of World War II, the legacy of the Greatest Generation. It is my understanding that our honored speaker’s father served during World War II. I would like to take a moment to honor your father, ma’am, and all those who served with him, and say ‘Thank You’,” she said.  Contreras added, “In regard to Women’s History Month, let’s celebrate not only the passing of the19th Amendmentallowing women the right to vote — which has its 100th anniversary this year — but also the voluminous contributions made by women of all races, colors, creeds and religions. Please join me in welcoming one such woman, Dr. Terri A. Dickerson.”  Dickerson thanked the audience for their welcoming applause and recounted how she pushed through difficulties she faced.  “There is greatness in the uncomfortable,” she said. “We are successful not in spite of, but [we] prevailed because of the difficulties we went through.”  Dickerson, a native of New Orleans, has served as a member of the Senior Executive Service since 2000, and joined the Coast Guard in 2006 as its civil rights director. In this role she ensures equal opportunity for every one of the 58,000-member workforce. Previously, Dickerson served as assistant staff director for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, examining federal civil rights policy and making recommendations. She also has served as associate administrator for the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Small Disadvantaged Business.  Dickerson holds an education degree from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, a master’s degree in government from Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, Maryland, and holds a doctorate in peace and conflict studies from George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
No. 10-5050.

#### Dwayne Anthony, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 900, 131 S. Ct. 233,

178 L. Ed. 2d 155,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6671.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
No. 10-6176.

#### Rashford Emanuel Galloway, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 971, 131 S. Ct. 482,

178 L. Ed. 2d 305,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7993.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 294.