alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Online training continues to highlight new WebFLIS features
 
  
  "I would like to welcome everyone to WebFLIS 2.0," said Defense Logistics Agency trainer Rick Proulx as he opened the Aug. 20 Web-based seminar, or “webinar,” being offered to demonstrate the new features of the latest version of the Web-based Federal Logistics Information System. According to Trudy Crafts-Peck, customer training course director, the training is not an entire WebFLIS class, but it does cover the new features released with the system.  She also said students like the new layout, newly added queries such as NSN History and characteristics, as well as new output views and the addition of the Bill of Materials as a separate tab in the WebFLIS system. “The new tabs include categories such as ‘Queries’ and ‘Bill of Materials’ searches,” said Cathy Reid, the WebFLIS customer liaison. “The Queries tab allows searches based on NSN, Part Numbers, Item Name, and characteristic word searches to name a few.   The new Bill of Materials search capability allows users to obtain FLIS information based on sets, kits, and outfits.” Crafts-Peck said the training also covers the most frequently asked questions addressed by the DLA Customer Interaction Center such as: ·         The need to register through the Account Management and Provisioning System and where to find step-by-step instructions.
    ·         Why it is important to log in every 35 days to keep an account active and avoid being locked out.
    ·         Using the hover function to see data entry rules for each search field.
    ·         Where to find other valuable resources like the User Guide found on the Main Menu and in the Quick Link drop down menu on each query screen. The webinars are being offered through Defense Collaboration Services, which is a relatively new system that uses open source technologies to provide enterprise-wide web conferencing. Sessions began in late July and have continued through August. The following opportunities are still available for the demonstration. Fall WebFLIS Webinar ScheduleDAY
            DATE
            Time**All times are Eastern Time Zone*Wednesday
            September 16, 2015
            9-11 a.m.Wednesday
            September 23, 2015
            1-3 p.m.Thursday
            October 8, 2015
            9-11 a.m.Wednesday
            October 21, 2015
            2-4 p.m.Thursday
            October 29, 2015
            9-11 a.m.Wednesday
            November 4, 2015
            9-11 a.m.Wednesday
            November 18, 2015
            1-3 p.m. Users should log into https://conference.apps.mil/webconf/e19e1624e28e797a1411b9bc0542393a to access the demonstrations. A call in number will be available in the chat pod once a user is logged into the conference. The webinars represent an ongoing effort to provide users with training. For further information about the webinars or WebFLIS training, contact: Log Info Svc Customer Training Scheduling Program Manager Commercial: (269) 961-4829 DSN: 312-661-4829 Email: dla.tng@dla.mil
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SS. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350),
the undersigned, Corey M. Horowitz, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities 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/ COREY M. HOROWITZ
------------------------------------
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN
AUGUST 2, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report of Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) on Form 10-K/A for the
period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David L. Hauser, Group Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Duke Energy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Duke Energy.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ DAVID L. HAUSER                                                           
|David L. Hauser Group Vice President and Chief Financial Officer April 3, 2006
J-S01008-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee :

:

v. :

:

THEODORE STEVE GRIER, a/k/a 

STEVEN GRIER,

:

:

Appellant : No. 121 WDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order entered on January 14, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,

Criminal Division, No. CP-02-CR-0007431-2004

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 5, 2015

Theodore Steve Grier, aka Steven Grier (“Grier”) appeals from the 

Order denying his Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act 

(“PCRA”).1 We affirm.

The PCRA court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history in 

its Opinion, which we incorporate herein by reference. See PCRA Court 

Opinion, 9/22/14, at 1-3 (unnumbered).

On appeal, Grier raises the following issue for our review: “Whether 

[Grier] was entitled to a new trial based upon the after-discovered evidence 

of Taili Thompson [(“Thompson”),] who would testify that all drugs found at 

the bar belonged to [] Thompson and not [Grier], [Grier] had no drugs on 

 

1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
J-S01008-15

- 2 -

him, and [Grier] did not assault any officers?” Brief for Appellant at 3 

(capitalization omitted).

Grier points out that he presented Thompson as a witness at trial, but 

that Thompson was deemed “unavailable” because he invoked his privilege 

against self-incrimination. Id. at 12 Grier asserts that Thompson 

reasserted his willingness to testify on Grier’s behalf in an Affidavit dated 

February 6, 2013, but could not recall if he ever communicated to Grier a 

willingness to testify prior to executing the Affidavit. Id. Accordingly, Grier 

claims, he has complied with the PCRA timeliness requirements. Id. at 12-

13. Grier points out that, at the evidentiary hearing conducted by the PCRA 

court, Thompson testified that Grier did not assault any officer, did not 

possess any drugs, and the drugs found at the bar belonged to Thompson. 

Id. at 13-14. Grier asserts that, when he saw police entering the bar, 

Thompson dropped the drugs on the floor, near Grier. Id. at 14. Grier 

contends that Thompson’s testimony constitutes exculpatory evidence 

which, if believed by the fact finder, would have resulted in a different 

verdict. Id. at 16-18.

The PCRA court set forth the relevant law, addressed Grier’s claim, and 

concluded that it lacks merit for the reason that Grier could have raised the 

issue previously. See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/22/14, at 3-5 (unnumbered). 

We agree with the sound reasoning of the PCRA court, and affirm on this 

basis. See id. 
J-S01008-15

- 3 -

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/5/2015
Circulated 01/22/2015 04:15 PM
Circulated 01/22/2015 04:15 PM
Circulated 01/22/2015 04:15 PM
Circulated 01/22/2015 04:15 PM
Circulated 01/22/2015 04:15 PM
No. 09-11208.

#### Terry L. Corber, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1134, 131 S. Ct. 897,

178 L. Ed. 2d 746,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 65.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 596 F.3d 763.
No. 09-11546.

#### In re James Mitchell, aka Wamel Allah, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1125, 131 S. Ct. 852,

178 L. Ed. 2d 582,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9599.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 825, 131 S. Ct. 218, 178 L. Ed. 2d 256, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7815.
No. 10-6827.

#### Ricardo Rivera-Moreno, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1035, 131 S. Ct. 580,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8788.

178 L. Ed. 2d 423,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 613 F.3d 1.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16671]



[[Page 34142]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[WH-FRL-6112-9]


National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 1 Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule and Filter Backwash Recycling Rule Public 
Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; announcement of public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is in the nascent stages of development for both the Long 
Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) and the Filter 
Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR). The Agency is holding these public 
meetings to share information with interested parties and to solicit 
feedback from them. The LT1ESWTR rule will primarily address microbial 
risks at systems serving under 10,000 people. Development of the rule's 
requirements will begin by considering the appropriateness of the 
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) regulatory 
template. The rule is to be promulgated by November 2000.
    The FBRR rule will provide, for the first time, federal regulatory 
requirements governing the recycle of filter backwash within the 
treatment process of public utilities. The rule will apply to utilities 
of all sizes that backwash filters. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 
requires that the final regulation be promulgated by August of 2000.
    In keeping with its open door policy for meetings with the public, 
EPA is inviting all interested members of the public to attend these 
meetings, with seating on a first-come, first-served basis.

DATES: The LT1ESWTR public meeting will be held on July 22, 1998, and 
will begin at 8:30 a.m. local time. The FBRR public meeting will begin 
at the same time on July 23, 1998. Both public meetings will conclude 
at approximately 4:30 p.m. local time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at U.S. EPA, Region 8 Office, 999 
18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the 
LT1ESWTR public meeting, please contact Steve Potts at (202) 260-5015. 
For the FBRR public meeting, please contact Bill Hamele at (202) 260-
2584.

    Dated: June 17, 1998
Cynthia C. Dougherty,
Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 98-16671 Filed 6-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
No. 10-5880.

#### Bernardo Costa, Petitioner v. Missouri.

562 U.S. 1089, 131 S. Ct. 697,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9041.

178 L. Ed. 2d 527,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 983, 131 S. Ct. 416, 178 L. Ed. 2d 325, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8198.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000


<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                         OCT-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                       9,967
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              129,583
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                214,998
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           364,295
<PP&E>                                     216,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             875,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      206,877
<BONDS>                                    459,223
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                  52,832
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               875,408
<SALES>                                    557,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           557,733
<CGS>                                      453,154
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              453,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            94,822
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          35,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (22,857)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,716
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (27,573)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (27,573)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0



</TABLE>
No. 09-11473.

#### Johnny D. Richardson, Petitioner v. John McHugh, Secretary of the Army.

562 U.S. 1103, 131 S. Ct. 814,

178 L. Ed. 2d 548,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9530.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 882, 131 S. Ct. 205, 178 L. Ed. 2d 124, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6628.
No. 10-6102.

#### Mike Settle, Petitioner v. Ricky Bell, Warden.

562 U.S. 1104, 131 S. Ct. 816,

178 L. Ed. 2d 549,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9585.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 970, 131 S. Ct. 480, 178 L. Ed. 2d 304, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8073.
No. 10-7403.

#### John E. Lopez, Petitioner v. Carl Zenon, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1115, 131 S. Ct. 850,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9744.

178 L. Ed. 2d 569,

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 390 Fed. Appx. 786.
No. 10-575.

#### Deborah K. Venesevich, Petitioner v. Michael J. Leonard, et al.

562 U.S. 1137, 131 S. Ct. 928,

178 L. Ed. 2d 752,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 394.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 129.
No. 10-549.

#### Jeffrey Holibaugh, Petitioner v. Robb Evans & Associates, LLC.

562 U.S. 1137, 131 S. Ct. 924,

178 L. Ed. 2d 751,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 147.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 609 F.3d 359.
No. 10-5934.

#### Osinachi Ogemdi Ezike, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 942, 131 S. Ct. 360,

178 L. Ed. 2d 233,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7298.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 470.
No. 10-5212.

#### Marlin E. Jones, Petitioner v. Terry L. Burns.

562 U.S. 1103, 131 S. Ct. 815,

178 L. Ed. 2d 548,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9551.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 909, 131 S. Ct. 259, 178 L. Ed. 2d 171, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7114.
# Troop Support Pacific bolsters fresh fruits, vegetables support to Navy 

/ Published Nov. 30, 2015
PHILADELPHIA, 
The USS Theodore Roosevelt received a special delivery Nov. 15 when it stopped at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii while sailing to its new homeport in San Diego.

The aircraft carrier was resupplied with fresh fruits and vegetables through Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Pacific, the first delivery through a new, long-term contract that enables better support to Navy ships in the area, said Linda Yoneshige, contract policy and oversight office chief.

The contract with a Honolulu vendor is the fourth long-term contract for DLA Troop Support Pacific in fiscal 2015 as they transition from purchasing FF&V items through blanket purchase agreements.

“This new FF&V long-term contract provides a long-term solution to our ships, allows for the volatility of the FF&V market and promotes collaboration with one vendor, thereby improving quality products and lessening product delays for our customers,” Yoneshige said. 

DLA Troop Support Pacific previously provided FF&V support for Navy ships in Oahu through several short-term BPAs. The new contract has a base period of 18 months and two 18-month options. 

The Roosevelt departed from Norfolk, Virgina in March. It sailed through the Mediterranean Sea and spent more than six months in the Middle East, launching strikes against the Islamic State as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, before sailing through the Pacific.
# C_2014052EN.01002902.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/29

---

Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV and Others against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2013 in Case T-540/11 Melkveebedrijf Overenk and Others v Commission

(Case C-643/13 P)

2014/C 52/53

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV, Maatschap Veehouderij Kwakernaak, Mulders Agro vof, Melkveebedrijf Engelen vof, Melkveebedrijf De Peel BV, M.H.H.M. Moonen (represented by: P.E. Mazel and A. van Beelen, advocaten)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellants request the Court to set aside the order against which the present appeal has been brought and to refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In conclusion, the order should be set aside on the ground of procedural irregularities, which prejudiced the appellants’ interests, and on the ground of the General Court’s breach of European Union law.

---
# C_2014052EN.01005303.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/53

---

Action brought on 16 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-121/13)

2014/C 52/104

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme applying the new GIPs to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 15 April 2013 calculating the bonus on his pension rights acquired before his entry into the service of the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 15 April 2013 calculating the bonus on his pension rights acquired before his entry into the service of the Commission;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 256 

To allow the Secretary of the Treasury to accept public donations to fund 

the construction of a barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2019 

Mr. GROTHMAN (for himself, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia, 

Mr. GOSAR, Mr. WEBER of Texas, and Mr. PERRY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To allow the Secretary of the Treasury to accept public 

donations to fund the construction of a barrier on the 

U.S.-Mexico border, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘People’s Border Wall 

5 Fund Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BORDER WALL FUND. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—At the end of subchapter III of 

8 chapter 33 of title 31, United States Code, insert the fol9 lowing: 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 256 IH

1 ‘‘§ 3344. Border Wall Fund. 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.— 

3 ‘‘(1) RECEIVE GIFTS.—Notwithstanding section 

4 3113 of title 31, the Secretary of the Treasury may 

5 accept for the Government a gift of money on the 

6 condition that it be used to plan, design, construct, 

7 or maintain a barrier along the international border 

8 between the United States and Mexico. 

9 ‘‘(2) TRUST FUND.—Not later than 60 days 

10 after the date of enactment of this section, the Sec11 retary of the Treasury shall— 

12 ‘‘(A) establish an account, to be known as 

13 the ‘Border Wall Fund’, into which money re14 ceived as gifts under this section shall be depos15 ited; and 

16 ‘‘(B) create a publicly accessible website to 

17 receive such gifts. 

18 ‘‘(3) PUBLIC NOTICE.—The Secretary of the 

19 Treasury shall— 

20 ‘‘(A) provide public outreach to educate 

21 the public about the existence of the Border 

22 Wall Fund; and 

23 ‘‘(B) notify the public, on the Department 

24 of the Treasury’s website, of the current 

25 amount of funds in the Border Wall Fund and 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 256 IH

1 the total amount donated over time to the Bor2 der Wall Fund. 

3 ‘‘(4) APPROPRIATION.—Money deposited in the 

4 Border Wall Trust Fund is appropriated to the Sec5 retary of Homeland Security and may be expended 

6 to plan, design, construct, or maintain a barrier 

7 along the international border between the United 

8 States and Mexico. Such funds may not be used for 

9 any other purpose.’’. 

10 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

11 for such chapter is amended by inserting at the end the 

12 following: 

‘‘3344. Border Wall Fund.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
No. 10-6614.

#### Marvin E. Stone, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 1049, 131 S. Ct. 609,

178 L. Ed. 2d 444,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8811.

November 15, 2010.

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