alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Employee Spotlight: Kevin Savage

/ Published Sept. 21, 2016
RICHMOND, VA, 
**Name:** Kevin Savage

**Organization:** (J6) Information Operations

**Years of service:** 27 Years

**What is your job, specifically?** Information technology specialist

**How does your work impact the overall mission of the DLA Aviation team?** My work impacts the overall mission because I help maintain the servers that run the software applications DLA Aviation uses to support the mission of supplying aviation parts to the warfighters.

**What knowledge, advice or suggestion can you offer to benefit those in your field, or even the entire workforce?** My suggestion or advise would be to always remember why you do your job and that is supporting the nation’s warfighters. They are the ones who are standing post as we sleep in our beds at night.

**What does the future hold for you as a DLA employee?** Well, I’m hoping retirement is in my not-so-distant future! In the meantime, until that day comes, I will continue supporting the DLA mission to the best of my ability.

**What is your favorite work activity?** My favorite work activity is fixing things that break and the satisfaction that what I help resolve keeps a plane flying.

**If you could speak directly to the warfighters you support, what would you say?** A huge thank you! Your sacrifice and dedication keeps America free.

**What is your favorite military aircraft? Why?** My favorite military aircraft is the Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopter. It’s used by all branches of the military and its versatility is perfect for troop movement and artillery placement. The best aspect of this aircraft, for me personally, is that it’s used when disaster strikes here and abroad for humanitarian relief efforts.

**If you had to pick a personal motto, what would it be?** To learn is to make mistakes!

**What is your proudest accomplishment?** My proudest accomplishment was teaching a basic computer class at church some years ago. One of my adult students told me because of the class she was able to get a job. That tops the cake for me.

**How do you define excellence?** I define excellence as never giving up and sticking to it no matter how long it takes. In the end, you will have achieved excellence.

**How do you define happiness?** I define happiness by having peace in my heart. No amount of money or possessions can make a man happy. Having peace, that’s where happiness lives.

**What are your favorite television shows?**I am old school, I love westerns. Every Saturday morning, I watch “*The Rifleman*.” I also like “*Gun Smoke*,” and “*Have Gun Will Travel*.”

**What type of music do you most enjoy?** I mostly enjoy jazz because it relaxes me and takes me on a journey. Yea, that’s jazz!

**Who is the most famous person you have met, or know personally?**The most famous person I’ve ever met was Carl Brashear, the first African American to become a U.S. Navy master diver. That was a true honor for me because he was such a man of honor, like the name of the movie about his life.

**Where is your favorite place to vacation?** My favorite place to vacation is anywhere near a body of water.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Executive Officer  Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)  of the Exchange Act

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Advanstar, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David W. Montgomery, 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, to the best of my knowledge,:



|By: |  | /s/DAVID W. MONTGOMERYDavid W. Montgomery
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

Date:
May 14, 2004

---



QuickLinks
No. 10-6074.

#### Edgar Wayne, Petitioner v. Dave Gundy, Warden.

562 U.S. 970, 131 S. Ct. 479,

178 L. Ed. 2d 303,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7968.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# C_2013274EN.01001301.xml

| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/13

---

Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 June 2013 in Case T-93/11: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v European Commission

(Case C-399/13 P)

2013/C 274/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the appeal, set aside the judgment of 7 June 2013 of the General Court, and annul the Commission’s decision of 6 December 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the appeal, set aside the judgment of 7 June 2013 of the General Court, and annul the Commission’s decision of 6 December 2010;

| — | order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs for this appeal and for the action in annulment before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs for this appeal and for the action in annulment before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the General Court made three errors in law.

| 1. | An error in law in holding the DG Trade Vademecum on Access to Documents (the Vademecum) was not intended to produce external effects; |
| --- | --- |

1.

An error in law in holding the DG Trade Vademecum on Access to Documents (the Vademecum) was not intended to produce external effects;

| 2. | An error in law by disregarding the presumption that the documents were intended to be seen by a large number of people; |
| --- | --- |

2.

An error in law by disregarding the presumption that the documents were intended to be seen by a large number of people;

| 3. | An error in law in holding in the circumstances that there was no implicit waiver of confidentiality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

An error in law in holding in the circumstances that there was no implicit waiver of confidentiality.

---
#### Norman Steiner, Appellant, v State of New York et al., Respondents.

[49 NYS3d 160]

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Mignano, J.), dated June 19, 2014, which, after a trial, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the claim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant was driving south on 1-87 when he crashed into a van that was stopped in his lane. He later filed this claim, in which he alleged that the State of New York and the New York State Thruway Authority negligently constructed, engineered, designed, improved, maintained, and controlled the highway at the location of his collision. After trial, the Court of Claims issued a judgment in favor of the defendants and against the claimant dismissing the claim. The claimant appeals.

The Court of Claims correctly found in favor of the defendants, as the claimant presented no evidence that the defendants deviated from the standards in existence at the time of the safety improvement project at issue *(see Schwartz v New York State Thruway Auth.,*61 NY2d 955, 956 [1984]; *Cipriano v State of New York,*171 AD2d 169, 173 [1991]; *Rooney v State of New York,*111 AD2d 159, 161 [1985]; *Merrill Transp. Co. v State of New York,*97 AD2d 921, 921-922 [1983]). Moreover, as the defendants correctly contend, qualified immunity provides an alternative ground for affirmance *(see Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*60 NY2d 539, 544-546 [1983]; *Rodriguez v Gutierrez,*138 AD3d 964, 968 [2016]), as the study of the traffic conditions at issue during the planning stages of the safety improvement project was not plainly inadequate, and there was a reasonable basis for the defendants’ traffic plan *(see Friedman v State of New York,*67 NY2d 271, 284 [1986]). Moreover, in light of the complete lack of pedestrian accidents and the predominance of single-car collisions over rear-end collisions in the several years preceding the claimant’s collision, there is no indication that the defendants neglected their continuing duty to review the operation of the traffic plan *855
      *(see Turturro v City of New York,*127 AD3d 732, 736 [2015], *affd*28 NY3d 469 [2016]).

The claimant’s remaining arguments either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly found in favor of the defendants.

Dillon, J.P, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ, concur.
No. 10-6054.

#### In re Albert Darcy Medina, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1001, 131 S. Ct. 512,

178 L. Ed. 2d 409,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8388,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
#### Com. v. Sult

05/03/2016

987 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 506
# From customer to director: Dail led DLA through critical transformations

/ Published July 10, 2015
Fort Belvoir, Virginia,
#### In the Matter of Natalia R., an Infant. Derek R., Appellant; The Children’s Aid Society, Respondent.

[65 NYS3d 712]

Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about August 23, 2016, which approved petitioner agency’s permanency goal of adoption, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Respondent father, whose consent was not required for the child’s adoption pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111, and who indisputably received the required notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the child’s best interests, was not aggrieved by the order of disposition *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 111-a; Social Services Law § 384-c; *Matter of Alyssa M.,*55 AD3d 505, 506 [1st Dept 2008]). Accordingly, his appeal is dismissed *(see*CPLR 5511; *Matter of Tanay R.S. [Tanya M.],*147 AD3d 858, 860 [2d Dept 2017]).

Even if consideration of this appeal were proper, we would find that the agency met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that adoption was in the child’s best interest *(see Matter of Skyla Lanie B. [Jonathan Miranda B.],*116 AD3d 589, 590 [1st Dept 2014]). The child was thriving in her foster home, where she had been living with her half-sister for two years, had bonded with her pre-adoptive foster parents, and was receiving treatment for her special needs *(see id.*at 590; *Matter of Jay den C. [Michelle R.],*82 AD3d 674, 675 [1st Dept 2011]; *see also*Social Services Law § 383 [3]). By contrast, the father had virtually no relationship with the child, limited financial resources, and an untreated mental illness, and a transfer of custody to him would have resulted in separation of the child from her half-sister.

The father’s argument that the agency thwarted him from developing a relationship with the child is not supported by the record. At any rate, the agency was not required to make “diligent efforts” to encourage the development of such a relation*577ship (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
# C_2015089EN.01002502.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/25

---

Order of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Richter + Frenzel v OHIM — Ferdinand Richter (Richter + Frenzel)

(Case T-418/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 089/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Richter + Frenzel GmbH (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by: D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Ferdinand Richter GmbH (Pasching, Austria) (represented by: M. Grötschl, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2013 (Case R 2001/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Ferdinand Richter GmbH and Richter + Frenzel GmbH + Co. KG.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs of the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs of the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

1

---
Exhibit 12.1


                       ECKERD CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
        Years Ended January 31, 1998, February 1, 1997, February 3, 1996,
                      January 28, 1995 and January 29, 1994

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                              January     February    February      January     January
                                             31, 1998      1, 1997     3, 1996     28, 1995    29, 1994
                                             --------     --------    --------     --------    --------
<S>                                           <C>          <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>   

Earnings before income taxes and
   extraordinary item                         $168,750     137,259     123,383       87,084      43,969
Add:
     Portion of rents representative of
        the interest factor (*)                 55,456      44,165      39,599       37,282      37,024
        
     Interest expense                           70,674      60,691      76,836       93,735     113,215
                                               -------     -------     -------      -------     -------

         Income as adjusted                   $294,880     242,115     239,818      218,101     194,208
                                               =======     =======     =======      =======     =======

Fixed charges:
     Interest expense                           70,674      60,691      76,836       93,735     113,215
     Portion of rents representative of
        the interest factor                     55,456      44,165      39,599       37,282      37,024
                                               -------     -------     -------      -------     -------

         Total fixed charges                  $126,130     104,856     116,435      131,017     150,239
                                               =======     =======     =======      =======     =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                2.34        2.31        2.06         1.66        1.29
                                               =======     =======     =======      =======     =======
</TABLE>
                                            


(*) The portion of rents representative of
    the interest factor is calculated
    as 33-1/3% of minimum rentals.
# Marine promotion recognizes leadership value at DLA Distribution 

/ Published May 4, 2023
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Marine Corps Maj. John Jarvis was promoted to Lt. Col. John Jarvis in a small ceremony at Defense Logistics Agency Distribution May 1.

“These promotions come with the expectation of what you can do at that higher level,” said Navy Rear Adm. Grafton Chase, commander, DLA Distribution, in comments before administering the oath of office.

Jarvis was “pinned,” the act of removing the old rank emblems from the uniform and applying the new rank emblem, by his wife Malia. Jarvis’ family was in attendance for the ceremony.

Lt. Col. Jarvis has served for 25 years, first enlisting in 1998 as a KC-130 loadmaster. He is currently a joint exercise planner for DLA Distribution.

                Navy Rear Adm. Grafton Chase, left, commander, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, administers the oath of office to Marine Corps Lt. Col. John Jarvis, right, as part of Jarvis’ May 1, 2023, promotion. Photo by Matthew Mahoney.                            Marine promotion recognizes leadership value at DLA Distribution                            Navy Rear Adm. Grafton Chase, left, commander, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, administers the oath of office to Marine Corps Lt. Col. John Jarvis, right, as part of Jarvis’ May 1, 2023, promotion. Photo by Matthew Mahoney.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Matthew MahoneyVIRIN: 230401-D-VQ057-0001
#### Frankie L., Matter of (Dustin L.)

2d Dept: 141 AD3d 657 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00176

- CV

In the Matter of X.J.T. §

§

§

§

§ From the 323rd District Court

o f Tarrant County (323

- 98064J

- 13 )

February 27, 2014

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

Dissent by Justice Dauphinot



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was some error in the trial court’s judgment. We modify t he deadly weapon

fi nding in the trial court’s commitment order as follows:

The Court affirmatively finds that the Respondent used or

exhibited a deadly weapon, to

- wit: a firearm, during the commission

of the offense found by the jury in Special Issue Number Two or

during th e immediate flight therefrom.

We modify the trial court’s judgment for determinate sentencing to replace

the paragraph entitled, “ Special Issue Number Two ,” as follows:

Do you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that

the Respondent, [appellan t] , on or about the 5th day of January,

2013, in the County of Tarrant and State of Texas, engaged indelinquent conduct by committing the offense of aggravated robbery

against Anu j Shrestha as hereinbefore defined?

We affirm the remainder of the judgment as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

C hief Justice Terrie Livingston
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Aminie Woolworth, on Behalf of Gregory Dawson, Petitioner, v Department of Corrections, Respondent.

[57 NYS3d 434]

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to release Gregory Dawson on his own recognizance pursuant to CPL 30.30 (2) (a) in connection with Kings County indictment No. 3873/16.

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief pursuant to CPL 30.30 (2) (a) *(see People ex rel. Smith v Warden, Anna M. Kross Ctr.,*131 AD3d 1077, 1078 [2015]; *People ex rel. Yung-Mi Lee v Warden of Rikers Is. Correctional Facility,*50 AD3d 931, 932 [2008]).

Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Duffy and Ian-nacci, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 Certification,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rajeev Madhavan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
for the periods presented therein.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    RAJEEV
MADHAVANRajeev MadhavanChief Executive OfficerDecember 9,
2010
# C_2015346EN.01002501.xml

| 19.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2015 — Gold Crest v OHIM (MIGHTY BRIGHT)

(Case T-714/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark MIGHTY BRIGHT - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 346/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gold Crest LLC (Goleta, United States) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 2038/2012-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MIGHTY BRIGHT as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gold Crest LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gold Crest LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

1

---
PLANIFIQUE. PROPORCIONE. ENTRENE.

¡Únase a la campaña para acabar 

con las caídas en la construcción!

www.stopconstructionfalls.com

tttttttttt PLANIFIQUE. PROPORCIONE. ADIESTRE. 

Tres pasos sencillos para prevenir caídas. 

CPWR [e THE CENTER FOR CONSTRUCTION 

RESEARCH ANO TRAINING 

PANORAMA GENERAL DE LAS CAÍDAS MORTALES EN LA CONSTRUCCIÓN 

La mayoría de las caídas 

mortales relacionadas 

con el trabajo ocurren 

en los trabajadores 

mayores de 

años 

45 

El Sur

es donde

ocurren la 

mayoría de 

las caídas 

mortales 

Los hispanos son el 

29% 

de la fuerza 

laboral en la 

construcción 

pero 

representan 

39% 

de las muertes 

debidas a caídas 

desde alturas 

Source 1: Socias-Morales CM, Chaumont Menéndez CK, Marsh SM. Fatal work-related falls in the United States, 2003-2014. Am J Ind Med. 2018;61:204–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22810 

Source 2: CPWR Quarterly Data Report, First Quarter 2017. https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/publications/Quarter1-QDR-2017.pdf
No. 10-23.

#### Seema L. Mishra, et al., Petitioners v. Doctors Hospital of Augusta, LLC, et al.

562 U.S. 890, 131 S. Ct. 226,

178 L. Ed. 2d 136,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7101.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 354 Fed. Appx. 421.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Noel Kane, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 562]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Ambro, J.), rendered January 20, 2016, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see *People v Bryant,*28 NY3d 1094, 1095-1096 [2016]; *People v Sanders,*25 NY3d 337, 341-342 [2015]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]). The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of the denial of that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence (see *People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; *People v Sears,*144 AD3d 1056 [2016]).

Hall, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.