alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# SAPR helps to support Disposition Services through healing

/ Published April 29, 2022
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
A sexual assault can lead to lasting psychological, emotional and physical effects for the victims who suffer through these events. Finding the right help and support is vital in order for survivors to move forward with a healthy life. 

One source of help is the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response office, which works to implement prevention and response programs throughout the Department of Defense. The creation of this office stemmed from a need for more comprehensive support to the survivors of sexual assaults.

“The SAPR Program,” said Robin Rogers, the DLA Disposition Services Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Coordinator, “was created to address sexual assault in the military services. Besides the element of crime being committed, victims of sexual assault in the military were not receiving the proper care and support to continue their mission.”                 SARC supports DLA  Disposition Services                            The Disposition Services SARC, Robin Rogers, addresses an audience during a speaking engagement to inform the workforce about the SARC's mission.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DLA Disposition ServicesVIRIN: 170418-D-OS362-029

Before becoming a SARC, Rogers helped military families while serving as a member of the Family Programs office and transitioned into her current role within the DLA SAPR program.

“In 2016,” said Rogers, “DLA established a stand-alone SAPR program – and I became a full-time SARC. Besides being able to assist victims, I enjoy being able to provide training and outreach across the major subordinate commands. Our DLA SAPR program and the SARCs work diligently to provide the best victim advocacy and support to our employees.”

The SAPR program is designed to offer support tailored to individual needs. Ensuring that the individual feels support from the organization itself is something that Rogers says is very important to the healing process as well.

“The support a victim receives directly impacts their healing and recovery,” said Rogers. “When someone experiences a crime perpetrated within their workplace, it is important to make sure that they get the support needed and do not also experience institutional betrayal. The added feeling of betrayal can undermine a survivor’s recovery and compound the trauma they experience.”

DLA Disposition Services approaches its 50th anniversary as the agency relies on quality employees in order to sustain operations. By ensuring support programs such as SAPR are in place and accessible to the workforce, the agency is posturing itself for yet another 50 years of quality support to the warfighter.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1585
WYMON GRIFFIN, Claimant - Appellant, andWILMA OLIPHANT; BERNICE HOWIE; BERTHA ANDERSON; RUTH COLEMAN; PAMELA BENNETT; KIM WALLACE; RANDY TUCKER; ROBERTA SASPORTAS; ANITA SINGLEY; CHARLES NORWOOD; LULA B. MI LLER; EVELYN ALEXANDER; YVONNE SESSOMS; BERTHA CHISHOLM; LILIE ANN STEWART; ANTWERP DUNCAN; MILDRED GLENN; CHARLOTTE CHAPTER OF THE OLD NORTH STATE MEDICAL, DENTAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY; TERRY RAGIN, Plaintiffs, versusCHARLOTTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-78-326-C-C-MU, CA-78-370-C-C-MU) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 20, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wymon Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. John Oliver Pollard, David Lee Terry, BLAKENEY & ALEXANDER, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order adopting the Special Master's Report: Final Findings and Recommendations Concerning the Stage II Claim of Wymon Griffin, and denying Appellant's motion to vacate the order of reference to the special master. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the Special Master and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Griffin v. Charlotte Memorial Hosp. & Medical Ctr. , Nos. CA-78-326- C-C-MU; CA-78-370-C-C-MU (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 1997). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED3
2017-1242.

#### State v. Taylor.

Richland App. No. 16CA66, 2017-0hio-4059. Reported at 151 Ohio St.3d 1424, 2017-Ohio-8371, 84 N.E.3d 1062. On motion for reconsideration. Motion fails for want of four votes.

Kennedy, French, and DeWine, JJ., would grant the motion.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
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/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gary C. Granoff, 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 Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer  June 13, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Felipe Char, Appellant.

[57 NYS3d 896]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Toomey, J.), imposed March 25, 2016, upon his conviction of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2), upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the mandatory surcharge of $570 imposed should be vacated in the interest of justice.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal. Therefore, he cannot challenge his sentence upon the ground raised in his brief *(see People v Bryant,*28 NY3d 1094 [2016]; *People v Sanders, 25*NY3d 337 [2015]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248 [2006]).

Chambers, J.P., Miller, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.20

                                                            May 9, 2006


Mr. Gary Granoff
Elk Associates Funding Corp.
747 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Dear Gary:

We are pleased to confirm that we hold available a line of credit for Elk
Associates Funding Corp. in the amount of $16,000,000.

Credit availability under this line is subject to the receipt of and continuing
satisfaction with current financial and other information which current
information is to be furnished by you to the Bank as we may, from time to time,
require.

The line of credit expires on July 31, 2006

As in the past, the line of credit may be withdrawn at the Bank's sole
discretion at any time.

If you have any questions, please call me.

                                               Very truly yours,

                                               /s/ Robert J. Fainelli

                                               Robert J. Fainelli
                                               First Vice President


ISRAEL DISCOUNT BANK OF NEW YORK MEMBER FDIC
511 FIFTH AVE. NEW YORK, NY 10017-4997 TEL: (212) 551-8500
No. 10-143.

#### John A. Shepardson, as Trustee for the Estate of Clara Jean Shepardson, Petitioner v. S. Todd Mitchell.

562 U.S. 895, 131 S. Ct. 322,

178 L. Ed. 2d 145,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6669.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001028198
<NAME>                        Louis Vitali
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. D0LLARS

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         12,518
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                   3,651
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         401,598
<DEPRECIATION>                                 27,316
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 475,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,162
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       129,956
<OTHER-SE>                                     175,844
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   475,276
<SALES>                                        126,434
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               157,558
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  68,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               22,989,375
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             32,387
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                107,333
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
# C_2013274EN.01000202.xml

| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 June 2013 — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Wirtschaftskammer Österreich — Fachverband der Autobus-, Luftfahrt- und Schifffahrtsunternehmungen

(Case C-328/13)

2013/C 274/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund

Applicant:

Defendant: Wirtschaftskammer Österreich — Fachverband der Autobus-, Luftfahrt- und Schifffahrtsunternehmungen

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| (a) | Is the wording of Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/23/EC, (1) according to which the ‘terms and conditions’ agreed in any collective agreement and applicable to the transferor must continue to be observed ‘on the same terms’ until the ‘date of termination or expiry of the collective agreement’, to be interpreted as also covering terms and conditions laid down by a collective agreement which have continuing effect indefinitely under national law, despite the termination of the collective agreement, until another collective agreement takes effect or the employees concerned have concluded new individual agreements? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Is the wording of Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/23/EC, (1) according to which the ‘terms and conditions’ agreed in any collective agreement and applicable to the transferor must continue to be observed ‘on the same terms’ until the ‘date of termination or expiry of the collective agreement’, to be interpreted as also covering terms and conditions laid down by a collective agreement which have continuing effect indefinitely under national law, despite the termination of the collective agreement, until another collective agreement takes effect or the employees concerned have concluded new individual agreements?

1

| (b) | Is Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/23/EC to be interpreted to the effect that ‘application of another collective agreement’ of the transferee is to be understood as including the continuing effect of the likewise terminated collective agreement of the transferee in the abovementioned sense? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Is Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/23/EC to be interpreted to the effect that ‘application of another collective agreement’ of the transferee is to be understood as including the continuing effect of the likewise terminated collective agreement of the transferee in the abovementioned sense?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.

1

---
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2278

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to extend

certain provisions relating to production incentive certificates for producers in the insular possessions, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 12 (legislative day, JULY 11), 1994

Mr. SIMON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States to extend certain provisions relating to production

incentive certificates for producers in the insular possessions, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PRODUCTION INCENTIVE

4 CERTIFICATE PROVISIONS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Additional U.S. Note 5(h)(i) to

6 chapter 91 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

7 United States is amended by striking ‘‘January 1, 1995,’’

8 and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2007,’’.
2

•S 2278 IS

1 (b) EXTENSION OF CERTIFICATE NUMBER PIC–EV–

2 89.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the pro3 duction incentive certificate, number PIC–EV–89, issued

4 jointly by the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary

5 of the Interior to the Hampden Watch Company, Inc.,

6 pursuant to paragraph (h)(i)(B) of Additional U.S. Note

7 5 to chapter 91 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

8 United States (formerly paragraph (h)(i)(II) of headnote

9 6 of schedule 7, part 2, subpart E of the Tariff Schedules

10 of the United States), shall be deemed to have been re11 issued on the date of the enactment of this Act in the

12 amount of the balance remaining on such certificate, and

13 shall expire on the date that is 1 year after such date of

14 enactment.

Æ
#### D.S., In re Adoption of; J.S.-G, In re; B.C. In re Adoption of; J.C., In re Adoption of 49

02/01/2016

859 MAL (2015)

49

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 100
# DLA Troop Support, Distribution provides meals to Louisiana food banks

/ Published Nov. 2, 2021
PHILADELPHIA, 
Hurricane Ida made landfall in late August, leaving a massive path of destruction and devastation in its wake. Weeks after the hurricane hit, there was still a need to support those who were left without a home or electricity.

The Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support worked with DLA Distribution and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to get 806,000 commercial shelf-stable meals to six food banks in Louisiana.

Deliveries were made to food banks in the cities of Houma, Lafayette, Shreveport, New Orleans, respectively, and two in Baton Rouge, said Harry Streibich, division chief of Subsistence Operational Rations at Troop Support.

FEMA placed orders for the meals Sept. 17, which were delivered Sept. 21-23, he said. In total, DLA Troop Support worked with four different vendors to procure the 806,000 meals for the six food banks over a three-day period, he said.

The commercial shelf-stable meals contain easy-open items in pouches or pop-top cans and do not require a heating element, Streibich said. Each meal serves one person.

After DLA Troop Support worked with contracted vendors on basic ordering agreements, everything was turned over to DLA Distribution, he said.

“None of this can happen without DLA Distribution,” he said. “We worked hand-in-hand with them. It’s not going to happen if not for them.”

DLA Troop Support created a schedule for meal pickups with its vendors, which was then sent to DLA Distribution, Streibich said.

While making these deliveries, there were no delays due to storm damage or driver availability, said David Gizenski, division chief for Transportation Support Operations at DLA Distribution. The agency also has a dedicated carrier contracted for such emergency events.

“As soon as we started to get an inkling that we were going to deliver meals to these food banks, we reached out to [our contractor],” Gizenski said.

Drivers followed COVID-19 precautions, complying at both vendor and delivery locations, he said.

“[DLA Distribution] schedules all the trucks, all the pickups, and make sure the meals get to their destination, so it’s really a team effort and two prongs of support,” Streibich said.

It is “imperative” that DLA’s major subordinate commands work together to serve customers and fulfill orders in a short time span, Gizenski said.

“Harry and I were talking daily during the week leading up [to the delivery], and the week of to make sure we had the right contacts that Troop Support was working with their vendors to make sure we were talking to the right people so we could get the drivers scheduled at the right locations,” he said.
No. 10-6219.

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

562 U.S. 972, 131 S. Ct. 485,

178 L. Ed. 2d 306,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8096.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 435 Fed. Appx. 296.
#### Com. v. Johnson15

05/11/2016

11 WAL (2016)

15

. Justice DONOHUE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 82 A.3d 1069
**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 in Amendment No. 1 onForm 10-K/A 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; File No. 333-18515, effective December 20,1996, and File No. 333-128312, effective September 14,2005) 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
No. 10-5913.

#### Larry Johnson, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 941, 131 S. Ct. 358,

178 L. Ed. 2d 232,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7220,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 599 F.3d 339.
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 Scottish Re Group Limited (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Scott E. Willkomm, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1)  The Report 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 result of
               operations of the Company.

/s/ Scott E. Willkomm
---------------------

Scott E. Willkomm
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 8, 2005

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Scottish Re Group Limited and will be retained by Scottish Re
Group Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
# C_2013304EN.01000501.xml

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2013 — Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein v Uta Wree

(Case C-422/13)

2013/C 304/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

Applicant:

Defendant: Uta Wree

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is there also an agricultural area within the meaning of Article 34(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) of 19 January 2009 if that area, although also used for agricultural purposes (grazing for sheep farming purposes), forms the cover layer of a landfill site in after-care?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

1

---
2017-0456.

#### State ex rel. Burse v. Fisher [sic].

In Prohibition. On respondents’ motions to dismiss. Motions granted. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating.