alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Navy Rear Adm. Matthew N. Ott III

/ Published Feb. 1, 2021

Navy Rear Adm. Matt Ott is a native of Richmond, Virginia. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Business with a minor in Psychology from the Virginia Military Institute and commissioned through VMI’s Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps Program. He holds a Master of Business Administration from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Kenan-Flagler Business School. Ott is a distinguished graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces and a graduate of the John F. Kennedy Executive School of Government, Harvard University.

His operational assignments include aviation support division officer, USS Tarawa (LHA 1); supply officer, Pre-commissioning Unit Decatur and USS Decatur (DDG 73); and supply officer, USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76). Each of his teams earned Supply Blue “E” Awards for Excellence. During Operation Unified Response, Ott served as one of the five members of U.S. Southern Command’s  Logistics Assessment Team and as Defense Logistics Agency Team’s operations officer supporting Joint Task Force-Haiti.

His shore assignments include outfitting and grooming officer, Commander, Naval Air Forces U.S. Pacific Fleet; flag aide to the Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command and 41st Chief of Supply Corps; aide to the 14th Director, DLA; aircraft depot repair officer, S-3 Viking and P-3 Orion lead logistician, and director of Industrial Support Programs, Naval Inventory Control Point Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; commanding officer, DLA Defense Supply Center Philadelphia Pacific Region; director of Aviation Operations, NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; commanding officer, NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Jacksonville; chief of staff, to the Commander, NAVSUP and 48th Chief of Supply Corps.

His flag officer assignments include, special assistant for audit readiness, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller), Washington, D.C.; executive director, Operational Contract Support Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Washington, D.C; and director, Fleet Ordnance and Supply / Fleet Supply Officer (N41), U.S. Fleet Forces Command.

Ott is designated as a Naval Aviation Supply Officer and a Surface Warfare Supply Corps Officer. He is a member of the Defense Acquisition Corps and is a Joint Qualified Officer. Ott’s teams at NAVSUP WSS and NAVSUP FLC Jacksonville both earned the prestigious Admiral Stan Arthur Logistics Team of the Year award.

His personal decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal and various unit and campaign awards.
# DLA Distribution commander delivers Martin Luther King, Jr. Day message

/ Published Jan. 12, 2024
NEW Cumberland, Pa., 
On Monday, January 15, we honor and celebrate the legacy of the civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The federal holiday commemorates Dr. King’s contributions to the fight against racial segregation and his dream of a society based on equality and justice.

The reoccurring theme is Remember! Celebrate! Act! A Day on, NOT a Day Off! and is a call to action through personal service. We keep Dr. King’s legacy alive by getting involved and working to strengthen the values of the communities we serve. It is a time to reflect on the progress made in civil rights and to inspire continued efforts toward a more inclusive and harmonious future.

This year holds particular significance; it also marks the 60th anniversary of Dr. King being awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace, recognizing his commitment to nonviolent methods during the Civil Rights Movement. In his acceptance speech, King pondered the contradiction that he would be given a prize to honor peace regarding a movement filled with much violence, oppression, and injustice toward people. He stated that nonviolence is in fact the answer explaining, “I conclude that this award, which I receive on behalf of that movement, is a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time — the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression.”

At the time, the prize money was $54,123, or about $551,000 in modern currency. Dr. King donated his financial prize to support the Civil Rights Movement, demonstrating his enduring commitment to the cause. His extraordinary deed of kindness was a powerful demonstration of his dedication to furthering the causes of justice and equality.

On MLK Day, let us honor Dr. King’s vision for equality and justice for all. I encourage you to reflect on his teachings, embrace diversity, and take positive actions in our communities. We should all strive for a world where everyone is treated with respect and dignity. Freedom, equality, and inclusion are true force multipliers and imperative to our national defense and the strength of our Nation.

I, along with Mr. Knight, thank you and your families for all you do to support our local communities, our organization, our Warfighters, and our great Nation.
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 Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary C. Granoff, President, Chief Executive Officer, and 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:



1.

The Report fully 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 results of operations of the Company.





By: /s/Gary C. Granoff

Gary C. Granoff

President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer



November 14, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-25-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-28-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-21-2000
<CASH>                                       3,996,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    581,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,587,000
<PP&E>                                      53,881,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,558,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,818,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,475,000
<BONDS>                                     50,855,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     458,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,818,000
<SALES>                                     18,194,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,194,000
<CGS>                                       10,286,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,519,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (48,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,162,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (439,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (442,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (442,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)


</TABLE>
II

Calendar No. 650

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2234

To amend the Mississippi River Corridor Study Commission Act of 1989

to extend the term of the commission established under that Act.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 23 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Mr. BREAUX (for himself, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. BUMPERS, Mr.

DURENBERGER, Mr. SASSER, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. SIMON, Mr.

FEINGOLD, and Mr. MATHEWS) introduced the following bill; which was

read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

SEPTEMBER 27 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Reported by Mr. JOHNSTON, without amendment

A BILL

To amend the Mississippi River Corridor Study Commission

Act of 1989 to extend the term of the commission established under that Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 2234 RS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TERM OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER

2 CORRIDOR STUDY COMMISSION.

3 Section 9(b) of the Mississippi River Corridor Study

4 Commission Act of 1989 (Public Law 101–398; 104 Stat.

5 859) is amended by striking out ‘‘3 years after the date

6 of the first meeting of the Commission,’’ and inserting in

7 lieu thereof ‘‘June 30, 1996,’’.

Calendar No. 650

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2234

A BILL

To amend the Mississippi River Corridor Study

the commission established under that Act.Commission Act of 1989 to extend the term of

SEPTEMBER 27 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Reported without amendment
No. 10A416.

#### Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, et al., Applicants v. Jeffrey Timothy Landrigan.

562 U.S. 996, 131 S. Ct. 445,

178 L. Ed. 2d 346,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8327.

October 26, 2010.

Application to vacate the order by the district court granting a temporary restraining order, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, granted. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the drug obtained from a foreign source is unsafe. The district court granted the restraining order because it was left to speculate as to the risk of harm. See Order Granting Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in Landrigan v. Brewer, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113485, No. CV-10-02246PHX-ROS (D Ariz.), Doc. 21, p. 15 (“[T]he Court is left to speculate . . . whether the non-FDA approved drug will cause pain and suffering.”). But speculation cannot substitute for evidence that the use of the drug is “ *‘sure or very likely*to cause serious illness and needless suffering.’ ” Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 50, 128 S. Ct. 1520, 170 L. Ed. 2d 420 (2008) (quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33, 113 S. Ct. 2475, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1993)). There was no showing that the drug was unlawfully obtained, nor was there an offer of proof to that effect. Motion to file documents under seal denied as moot.

Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application to vacate the order granting a temporary restraining order.
No. 09-1159.

#### Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, Petitioner v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 1001, 131 S. Ct. 502,

178 L. Ed. 2d 368,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8553.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted.

Same case below, 583 F.3d 832.
# C_2013352EN.01000702.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/7

---

Appeal brought on 13 September 2013 by Cytochroma Development, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2013 in Case T-106/12: Cytochroma Development, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-490/13 P)

2013/C 352/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Cytochroma Development, Inc. (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, A. Smith, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment of the General Court dated 3 July 2013 in Case T-106/12; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the General Court dated 3 July 2013 in Case T-106/12;

| — | order OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those of the appellant |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those of the appellant

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the following grounds:

| — | The General Court infringed Article 65(6) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) and Article 1 (d) (1) of Regulation 216/96 (2) regarding the measures taken by OHIM to comply with the judgment of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court infringed Article 65(6) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) and Article 1 (d) (1) of Regulation 216/96 (2) regarding the measures taken by OHIM to comply with the judgment of the General Court;

1

2

| — | The General Court infringed the principle of legal certainty, as well as Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court infringed the principle of legal certainty, as well as Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

1

OJ L 78, p. 1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96 of 5 February 1996 laying down the rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

2

OJ L 28, p. 11

---
# C_2013108EN.01004003.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/40

---

Action brought on 10 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-16/13)

2013/C 108/96

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the JSIS insofar as it confirms the terms of the draft decision rejecting the application for recognition of the occupational origin of the disease from which the wife of the applicant, a former staff member, died.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of 23 March 2012 insofar as it confirms the terms of the draft decision of 23 June 1995; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of 23 March 2012 insofar as it confirms the terms of the draft decision of 23 June 1995;

| — | insofar as it is necessary, annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 29 October 2012, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 6 July 2012 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

insofar as it is necessary, annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 29 October 2012, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 6 July 2012 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
No. 10-5951.

#### Charles Mason Whitley, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 942, 131 S. Ct. 361,

178 L. Ed. 2d 233,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7278.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 379 Fed. Appx. 390.
# National Preparedness Month Fair: Don't wait, communicate

/ Published Sept. 22, 2015
RICHMOND, Virginia, 
September is National Preparedness Month and Defense Logistics Agency Installation Support at Richmond conducted a National Preparedness Fair Sept. 22, at the Frank B. Lotts Conference Center on Defense Supply Center, Richmond, Virginia. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency states knowing what to do before, during and after an emergency is a critical part of being prepared and can make all the difference when seconds count.

This year the campaign encourages employees to take action now and make a plan to stay safe and communicate during any disaster that could affect their community, family, or pets.

Throughout the month, DLA Installation Support at Richmond provided employees with needed information and resources via DLA Today’s news articles focused on how to prepare for disasters, with Police Dog McGruff walking through buildings to talk with employees about crime prevention, and with a seminar for employees called “Ask a Security Professional” promoting awareness and developing relationships and partnerships between the installation’s Security and Emergency Services personnel and the Defense Supply Center Richmond community.

James Tanner, a safety specialist in DLA Installation Support at Richmond’s Safety and Occupational Health Office, was on-hand at the fair to remind employees part of being prepared is being able to recognized and prevent workplace hazards and knowing how to safely work at the computer; avoiding health risks created by sitting too long without a break. Tanner provided informational brochures on those topics to employees stopping by his booth during the fair. 

Other fair participants included Bellwood Credit Union representatives who provided information on important documents to have as part of financial planning preparedness; DSCR’s firefighters provided a display on house hazards and simulated fire extinguisher training; Chesterfield Country police officers provided employees with information on the Yellow Dot Program, that provides life-saving information on drivers to emergency responders during accidents.

Layne Marino, DLA Intelligence at Richmond’s operations and information security program manager, displayed checklists for online security to different social platforms and will provide electronic copies to employees if they email him at Lawrence.Marino@dla.mil. 

Thomas Reinard, DLA Installation Support at Richmond’s chief of Security and Emergency Services, was well pleased with the increased attendance at the fair and praised Matthew Ameden, the installation’s emergency manager, for organizing it. 

Reinard urged employees to prepare ahead of emergencies and disasters, saying the time to prepare is now, not later. 

Employees can access preparedness resources through FEMA’s website and also on the installation’s Security and Emergency Services Elknet website.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

774 

CA 12-00674 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

TODD M. HOBIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

CANDICE L. HOBIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

CANDICE L. HOBIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE. 

GETNICK, LIVINGSTON, ATKINSON & PRIORE, LLP, UTICA (THOMAS L. ATKINSON

OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

JOHN G. KOSLOSKY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, UTICA.

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David

A. Murad, J.), entered December 15, 2011. The order, inter alia,

granted plaintiff sole legal and physical custody of the parties’

youngest child. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Supreme Court.

Entered: June 7, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# DLA makes holidays special for local kids in Richmond, Chesterfield County

/ Published Dec. 16, 2015

Defense Logistics Agency employees at Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, made the holidays special for 112 local children this year through four local schools’ Angel Tree programs.  Bensley and Bellwood Elementary Schools and Meadowbrook High School in Chesterfield County and Reid Elementary School in Richmond have reached out to DSCR employees for many years to support children in need from their schools for the holidays.    

Employees dropped gifts off for their adopted angels on center the morning Dec. 16and school representatives picked them up to deliver to the children’s parents later in the day.  DSCR employees have participated in the four schools’ Angel Tree programs for more than 20 years.   

The annual Angel Tree programs are coordinated by the schools and the DLA Aviation Public Affairs Office staff who, along with many volunteer employees,  set up an adoption table in the restaurant on center every year and coordinate the collection and distribution gifts to the schools.
#### West Hempstead Water District, Respondent, v Buckeye Pipeline Company, L.P., et al., Defendants, and Leon Petroleum, LLC, Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 121]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for public and private nuisance, the defendant Leon Petroleum, LLC, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeStefano, J.), entered January 16, 2015, as denied that branch of its motion which was to impose sanctions upon the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“A court, ‘in its discretion, may award to any party or attorney in any civil action or proceeding before the court . . . costs in the form of reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting from frivolous conduct’ ” *(Stone Mtn. Holdings, LLC v Spitzer,*119 AD3d 548, 550 [2014], quoting 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]). “Although the advancement of a meritless position may serve as the basis for a finding of frivolity, the standard for such a showing is high: the rule provides that a position will be deemed *559frivolous only where it is ‘completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law’ ” *(Stone Mtn. Holdings, LLC v Spitzer,*119 AD3d at 550, quoting 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]; *see Mascia v Maresco,*39 AD3d 504, 505 [2007]; *Kucker v Kaminsky & Rich,*7 AD3d 491, 492 [2004]). “The party seeking sanctions has the burden to demonstrate that its opponent’s conduct was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c)” *(Stone Mtn. Holdings, LLC v Spitzer,*119 AD3d at 550).

Here, the defendant Leon Petroleum, LLC (hereinafter Leon), failed to meet that burden. The Supreme Court, in granting Leon’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, found that the plaintiff attempted to raise a new theory of liability, and failed to support that theory with documentary evidence or other evidence in admissible form. However, Leon failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s position was completely without merit in law, undertaken “ ‘primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure’ ” Leon, or based upon material statements of fact which are false *(Matter of Lebron v Lebron,*101 AD3d 1009, 1010 [2012], quoting 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]). Accordingly, the denial of that branch of Leon’s motion which was to impose sanctions upon the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 was a provident exercise of discretion.

Leon’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Hinds-Radix, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5275.

#### John R. G., Petitioner v. Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada.

562 U.S. 912, 131 S. Ct. 269,

178 L. Ed. 2d 177,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6841,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 125 Nev. 1048, 281 P.3d 1186.