alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Pearl Harbor employees extend the giving season

/ Published Feb. 12, 2016
PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii, 

Despite the end of the holiday seasonand arrival of a new year, employees at DLA Distribution Pearl Harbor, Hawaii,have stayed in the giving spirit.  

Each year during the months ofOctober, November and December, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Toys for Tots programsite representatives around the island of Oahu collect new, unwrapped toys frommany different participating organizations and redistribute those toys asholiday gifts to less fortunate children in the community.  

Serving as the Toys for Totsrepresentative for Naval Base Pearl Harbor, LS3 Brianna Glynn, assigned to DLADistribution Pearl Harbor’s Warfighter Support Office, loves the program becauseit “helps those who are less fortunate and delivers a strong sense of feelingthat no one person is left out...despite anyone’s financial shortcomings andcircumstances.”  

For the past holiday season, Glynnworked alongside Vivian Ahsam, DLA Distribution Pearl Harbor receivingsupervisor, and LS1 Manny De Jesus of the Warfighter Support Office, to organizethe collection, consolidation and delivery of toys from all organizations onNaval Base Pearl Harbor to benefit Toys for Tots.

Their generosity didn’t stop there,however.

When a local trucking company andchurch group learned of the trios efforts, they expressed a desire to make agenerous donation and requested that the Glynn, Ahsam and De Jesus facilitatethe transaction.  As a result, the trio assisted in the receiving,donation and Jan. 15 turnover of approximately $1,000 to the Toys for Totsprogram.****

“Thanks to LS3 Glynn and LS1 DeJesus’ hard work and efforts we were able to connect with the coordinator forToys for Tots Hawaii.  It is with excitement that we have the greathonor of sending this check knowing that all proceeds will go to benefit thechildren of Hawaii,” said Ahsam.
# Attorney bids farewell after 36-year career

/ Published Oct. 6, 2016
Richmond, Virginia,
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Dennis J. Allingham, certify that:
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Lifecore Biomedical,Inc.;
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period coveredby this report;
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     (d) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (e) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.     Date: September 13, 2004     By /s/ DENNIS J. ALLINGHAM    Dennis J. Allingham *President, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary andDirector* *(principal executive officer)*
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. . 1350 Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the
undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Pierre Foods, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 5, 2004 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /S/ NORBERT E. WOODHAMS
Norbert E. Woodhams
July 20, 2004 Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Pierre Foods, Inc. (the Company),
hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of the Company for the quarter ended June 5, 2004 (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /S/ PAMELA M. WITTERS
Pamela M. Witters
July 20, 2004 29
No. 09-9804.

#### Rogelio Enrique Headley-Ombler, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 949, 131 S. Ct. 71,

178 L. Ed. 2d 246,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7711.

October 4, 2010.

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

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
# DLA Distribution headquarters hosts new DLA National Account Managers

/ Published Nov. 19, 2015
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
The newly assigned Defense Logistics Agency National Account Managers representing the Army, Air Force and the Marine Corps, as well as representatives from DLA headquarters customer assistance and strategic engagement teams visited DLA Distribution headquarters and its largest distribution center in the network, DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pa., on Nov. 17 to discuss DLA’s global logistics processes.

The group toured the Eastern Distribution Center, the Department of Defense’s largest warehouse.  Army Lt. Col. Jacob Freeman, DLA Distribution Susquehanna, led the group through the organization’s key locations, including receiving operations, the Consolidation and Containerization Point, the high-rise storage and retrieval system, and the air line of communication pallet build area.

Following the tour, the group headed to DLA Distribution headquarters for a command overview, which highlighted DLA Distribution’s worldwide network, special functions the command provides - such as kitting and hazardous material handling - and transportation coordination that the organization provides for all of DLA.

The National Account Manager visit was part of DLA Distribution’s ongoing efforts to ensure the mission of providing the warfighter customers with the most efficient, effective and best value support is understood.
No. 10-6014.

#### Maurice J. Johnson, Petitioner v. Joseph D. Valentino, et al.

562 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 509,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8488,

178 L. Ed. 2d 377,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
No. 10-6388.

#### Omowale A. Shabazz, Petitioner v. Tennessee.

562 U.S. 1046, 131 S. Ct. 602,

178 L. Ed. 2d 439,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8961.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Eastern Division, denied.
#### In the Matter of Louis Lilakos, Appellant, v Derek Lee, Department of Buildings Queens Commissioner, Respondent.

[49 NYS3d 529]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Department of Buildings Queens Commissioner dated June 13, 2014, which directed that the subject premises be vacated, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), entered November 12, 2014, which denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Department of Buildings Queens Commissioner (hereinafter the Commissioner), which ordered that the petitioner vacate his two-family dwelling (hereafter the property). The Commissioner determined that there was “imminent danger to life or public safety or safety of the occupants or to the property” because the petitioner illegally converted the property into a “transient use hostel without providing required means of egress, sprinkler system, [or] fire alarm,” and because the property “exceeds the occupancy requirements.” The Commissioner directed that the property remain vacant and unoccupied until the conditions giving rise to the order had been corrected *897and the order was rescinded. The Supreme Court determined that the petitioner was not entitled to rescission of the vacate order, denied the petition, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Contrary to the Commissioner’s contention, the appeal has not been rendered academic by the fact that the petitioner has sold the property. In light of the petitioner’s claim that some of the proceeds from the sale remain in escrow pending resolution of this proceeding, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s rights would not be directly affected by rescission or annulment of the vacate order *(see generally Matter of AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc. v Town of Clarkstown,*132 AD3d 857, 858 [2015]).

However, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, he failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to rescission or annulment of the vacate order on the basis that the Commissioner’s determination to issue the vacate order was illegal, an abuse of discretion, or arbitrary and capricious *(see generally*Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-207.4; *Matter of El Nazer v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. [Code Enforcement],*35 AD3d 857, 858 [2006]; *East 13th St. Homesteaders’ Coalition v Wright,*217 AD2d 31, 39 [1995]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Dillon, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         103,954
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      770
<ALLOWANCES>                                       163
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,715
<PP&E>                                          11,450
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,773
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,746
<BONDS>                                          1,902
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       177,240
<OTHER-SE>                                    (45,867)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   140,021
<SALES>                                          1,649
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,649
<CGS>                                            2,170
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,582
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,103)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,103)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,522)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.84)


</TABLE>
No. 09-11224.

#### Jimmy Lipham, Petitioner v. Maine.

562 U.S. 868, 131 S. Ct. 162,

178 L. Ed. 2d 96,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6509.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
# C_2014409EN.01003601.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2014 — Laboratoires Polive v OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (DODIE)

(Case T-77/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DODIE - Earlier national word mark DODOT - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Power to alter decisions))

2014/C 409/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires Polive (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Arbora & Ausonia, SLU (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2012 (Case R 1949/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Arbora & Ausonia, SLU and Laboratoires Polive.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 31 October 2012 (Case R 1949/2011-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 31 October 2012 (Case R 1949/2011-2);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Laboratoires Polive; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Laboratoires Polive;

| 4. | Orders Arbora & Ausonia, SLU to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Arbora & Ausonia, SLU to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.

1

---
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 Quarterly Report of Magma Design
Automation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory C. Walker, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify to the best of 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 result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Gregory C. WalkerGregory C. Walker Senior Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial Officer August 14, 2003




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 10-6153.

#### Kenneth A. Hendershott, Petitioner v. Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary.

562 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 519,

178 L. Ed. 2d 384,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8640.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 09-11207.

#### Matthew Mason Dodge, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 961, 131 S. Ct. 457,

178 L. Ed. 2d 287,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8031.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 597 F.3d 1347.
Exhibit 32.2

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 ending July 1, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Peter S. Teshima, Chief Financial 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 result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.



/S/ PETER S. TESHIMAPeter S. TeshimaCorporate Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 9, 2007


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 10-5630.

#### Wesley Ray Rogers, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 932, 131 S. Ct. 329,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7604,

178 L. Ed. 2d 214,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 10-5808.

#### Melissa K. Belanger, Petitioner v. Clarice Stovall, Warden.

562 U.S. 967, 131 S. Ct. 469,

178 L. Ed. 2d 298,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8040.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
#### Jeanette Westphal, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Real Estate International, Ltd., et al., Appellants, et al., Defend*547ant. (And Another Action.)

[66 NYS3d 607]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered on or about September 9, 2015, which, after a nonjury trial, found for plaintiff’s decedent Ella Reid, and rescinded the contract at issue, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 18, 2015, which, inter alia, sua sponte modified the court’s prior order to direct that title to the property at issue reverted to decedent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no basis to disturb the court’s conclusion that defendants engaged in overreaching by taking advantage of the plaintiff’s decedent and inducing her to execute an unfavorable contract, warranting rescission of the contract *(see generally Skolnick v Goldberg,*297 AD2d 18, 20 [1st Dept 2002]).

The order entered November 18, 2015 is not void. Decedent’s sister had been appointed administrator of decedent’s estate prior to the order, and defendants have not demonstrated prejudice (s*ee e.g. Caridi v Durst,*228 AD2d 396 [1st Dept 1996]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kapnick, Webber and Moulton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MONARCH
CEMENT COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1771903
<SECURITIES>                                  11672934
<RECEIVABLES>                                 10520499
<ALLOWANCES>                                    620000
<INVENTORY>                                   12800997
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              37357055
<PP&E>                                        97054208
<DEPRECIATION>                                72074539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                67766502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6642403
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      10539285
<OTHER-SE>                                    38532291
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  67766502
<SALES>                                       15890007
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              15890007
<CGS>                                         14951282
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 14951282
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (621811)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (225000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (396811)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (396811)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>