alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA Troop Support Celebrates Two  Retirements

/ Published Oct. 3, 2023
PHILADELPHIA, 
 Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support held a civilian retirement ceremony in honor of Robert Panichelle, DLA Troop Support competition advocate and chief of pricing, and Isabelle Duvak, contract specialist with a senior contracting officer warrant in DLA Troop Support construction & equipment supply chain, on September 28, 2023.  

“Bob is retiring after 41 years of government work, and Isabelle with 39 years,” said DLA Troop Support Commander Army Col. Landis C. Maddox, who presided over the ceremony. “For those who do not know, Isabelle jokes she started with DLA at 9-years-old.” 

Panichelle began his career in January 1982 as a procurement agent at the Defense Personnel Support Center, Clothing & Textile directorate. Further into his career, he was responsible for the introduction of the Army Combat Uniform, Airman Battle Uniform and the Navy Working Uniform that replaced their older battledress uniforms. 

In 2009, while serving as the DLA Troop Support Competition Advocate and Chief of Pricing, Penichelle and his team saved the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars by enforcing competition that effectively drove down prices along with assisting contracting personnel during negotiations.  

“I may have orchestrated some things, but my team did the work,” said Panichelle. “Without them we couldn’t have had the accomplishment that we had.”  

Panichelle is most proud of the relationships he forged with colleagues and customers. “It’s been a blast. I have a lot of people to thank, a lot of mentors I have learned from and others who have been influential,” said Panichelle. “Thank you to Mr. [William] Kenny because he has always been in my corner.” 

During his retirement years, Panichelle wants to continue to play basketball, learn to play the piano, and become a part-time real estate agent. 

Duvak’s government career started in March 1984 at the Navy Aviation Supply Office. During her time at DLA Troop Support, she obtained her bachelor’s degree in Business Logistics from LaSalle University via the DLA’s Professional Logistics Program, a master’s degree in International Business, and graduated from DLA’s mid-level development program.  

On a volunteer basis, Duvak participated as a member on the DLA Family Day committee for over 25 years. 

“With your departure, we have a large void to fill in preparation for next year’s Family Day,” said Maddox. 

“Thank you all for putting this together,” said Duvak. “This has been a beautiful ceremony; I truly feel grateful for the experience I had over the years and people I have met along the journey.” 

During her retirement years, Duvak plans to spend time at the Jersey Shore, gardening, and spending time with family and friends. 

“Please know you all have made an important impact on the legacy of our great organization, said Maddox. “Thank you for your valued service.”
No. 10-6155.

#### Mario Henderson, Petitioner v. Kurt Jones, Warden.

562 U.S. 971, 131 S. Ct. 481,

178 L. Ed. 2d 304,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7941.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 364 Fed. Appx. 990.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2669 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2669

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to 
    liability under State and local requirements respecting devices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2019

    Ms. DeLauro (for herself, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. Fitzpatrick) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to 
    liability under State and local requirements respecting devices.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medical Device Safety Act''.

SEC. 2. LIABILITY UNDER STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS RESPECTING 
              DEVICES.

    (a) Amendment.--Section 521 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (21 U.S.C. 360k) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) No Effect on Liability Under State Law.--Nothing in this 
section shall be construed to modify or otherwise affect any action for 
damages or the liability of any person under the law of any State.''.
    (b) Effective Date; Applicability.--The amendment made by 
subsection (a) shall--
            (1) take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
        Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (Public Law 94-295); and
            (2) apply to any civil action pending or filed on or after 
        the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
2017-1076.

#### State v. Jenkins.

Greene App. No. 2016-CA-10, 2017-Ohio-693. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

O’Neill, J., dissents.
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 this Annual Report of DYNASIL CORPORATION OF AMERICA (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Craig T. Dunham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and
Richard A. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:





(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.





/s/ Craig T.
DunhamCraig
      T. DunhamPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Richard A. JohnsonRichard
      A. JohnsonChief
      Financial Officer


December
17, 2010
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-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 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
                                    NOVEMBER 12, 2008
# Huegel visits Distribution prior to assuming new position at CDDOC

/ Published May 14, 2015
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
The incoming commander to U.S. Central Command’s Deployment Distribution Operations Center in Kuwait visited DLA Distribution May 12 to gain a better understanding of how she will be supporting DLA in her upcoming position.

As CDDOC commander, Navy Rear Adm. Valerie K. Huegel will head a team of experts from U.S. Transportation Command, Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Center, Army Materiel Command, Defense Logistics Agency, and other service components. 

During her visit to DLA Distribution’s headquarters, she discussed with DLA Distribution commander Brig. Gen. Richard Dix and key staffers how the two organizations will work together to ensure the seamless movement of supplies to troops in the USCENTCOM region.

She also toured DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pa’s Eastern Distribution Center, the largest distribution facility within the Department of Defense.  DLA Distribution Susquehanna provides military and commercial repair parts, clothing and textiles, medical supplies and industrial and electronic components to military customers in the CENTCOM area of responsibility as well as other locations around the globe.

The visit was not Huegel’s first introduction to DLA.  She previously served as forward director of DLA’s Joint Contingency Acquisition Support Office.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00324

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Z .K.W. , Z.K.C., V.L.S., Jr., and V.O.K.S., Children

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- PA

- 02567

Honorable Monique Diaz, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order of termination is

AFFIRMED. Because appellant is indigent, no costs of this appeal are assessed.

SIGNED October 23 , 2019.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 17, 2023.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 17, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24I0062. MONTEL WHITE v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

19CR008194
# Susquehanna’s Frantz selected as Employee of the Quarter

/ Published Jan. 12, 2016
SUSQUEHANNA, Pa.,
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
J ULIAN GU T I E RR E Z, Ap pe lla nt,
v.
M AR IA LOU RDE S GU T I E RR E Z, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 02 12 -C V

Appea l from the 388th J udicial District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 2008CM1409)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION This appea l is before the Court on its own moti on for de termination whethe r the a ppeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Finding that Appellant did not timely file a notice of appe al, we dismiss the appe al for w ant of jurisdiction. A civil appea l is perfe cted whe n the notice of appea l is filed. T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.1; Restrepo v . First Nat ’l Bank of Dona Ana County, N.M. , 892 S.W .2d 237, 238 (Tex.App.-- El Paso 1995, no writ)(a

pplying f ormer T EX .R.A PP .P. 40(a)( 1)). When no motion for new trial
or re quest for f

indings of f

act a nd conclusions of law

is filed, the notice of

appea l must be filed within thirty

day s after

the judg ment is signed. T EX .R.A PP .P. 26 .1 ; Restrepo , 892 S.W .2d at 238. When motion for new trial is timely filed, or a

party timely files a r equest for

finding s of fa ct and conclusions of law , the notice of appea l is due ninety

day s after

the judg ment is signed. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 26 .1 (a ). An untim e ly no tic e of a pp e a l w ill be c on sid e re d ti me ly if it i s f ile d w ith in fi ft e e n d ay s a ft e r t

he du e date and

inc lud e s a

re a so na ble e xplanatio n f

or the a pp e lla nt’ s f a ilure to file on the due date. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 26 .3 ; Vergburgt v. Dorne r , 9 5 9 S. W. 2 d 6 1 5 , 6 1 7 ( T e x.-2-

1997). Th e jud g me nt i n th is c a se wa s e nte re d o n Apr il 4 . 2 00 8. Ne ith e r a mot ion fo r n e w tri a l,
nor a r equest for

finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law wa s filed in the trial cour t. Thus, the notice of a

ppeal wa s due to be filed no later than Ma y 4, 2008. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 26.1. Appellant did not file a notice of appe al until J une 9, 2008. The ref ore, A ppellant’s notice of appea l was untimely

filed. B y letter dated J une 9, 2008, the c lerk of this Court notified Appellant in writingof our intent to dismiss t he ca se for want of jurisdiction bec ause the appea l had not bee n perf

ecte d. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 42.3. Appellant has not responde d to the notice. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l for wa nt of jurisdiction.
September 11, 2008 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.8

                            SHARES FOR DEBT AGREEMENT

      This Shares For Debt Agreement (the  "Agreement") is made and entered into
as of June 22, 2004, by and between  Innovative  Card  Technologies,  a Delaware
corporation, (the "Company") and Luc Berthoud (the "Creditor") with reference to
the following facts:

                                    RECITALS

      WHEREAS,  the Company desires to pay Creditor amounts due for a portion of
the  outstanding  services  provided  to the Company as of March 31, 2004 in the
amount of $65,000 (the "Outstanding Debt"); and

      WHEREAS,  the Company has agreed to issue and the  Creditor  has agreed to
accept preferred shares of the Company's Series A Convertible Preferred Stock as
full and complete settlement of the Outstanding Debt.

      NOW  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the mutual  covenants  and promises
contained herein, and for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which  are  hereby  mutually   acknowledged,   the  parties  to  this  Agreement
(collectively "parties" and individually a "party") agree as follows:

                                    AGREEMENT

      1.    The Company agrees to issue and the Creditor  agrees to accept sixty
            five thousand  (65,000) shares of the Company's Series A Convertible
            Preferred  Stock at a deemed price of $1.00 per share as payment for
            the Outstanding  Debt (the "Debt Shares").  The Debt Shares shall be
            issued to in the name of Luc Berthoud.

      2.    The parties shall hereafter execute all documents and do all that is
            necessary,  convenient or desirable in the reasonable opinion of the
            other party to effect the provisions of this Agreement.

      3.    For the  convenience of the parties,  this Agreement may be executed
            by facsimile  signatures  and in  counterparts  that shall  together
            constitute  the  agreement  of the  parties  as  one  and  the  same
            instrument.  It is the  intent  of the  parties  that a copy of this
            Agreement  signed by any party  shall be fully  enforceable  against
            that party.

<PAGE>

               IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement as of
the date first above written.

INNOVATIVE CARD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
a Delaware corporation


BY: /S/ ALAN FINKELSTEIN
----------------------------------
Alan Finkelstein
Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Luc Berthoud
----------------------------------
Name: Luc Berthoud
No. 10-6462.

#### Russell Robinson, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 979, 131 S. Ct. 432,

178 L. Ed. 2d 319,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8196.

October 18, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Radu Lupascu, Respondent, v Utog 2-Way Radio, Appellant, and State Insurance Fund, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 700]

*916Peters, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 27, 2001, which dismissed the employer’s appeal on the ground that it lacked standing.

In April 1998, claimant was injured in the course of his employment. Following back surgery, he returned to part-time employment with the same employer for approximately four months after which he ceased working. In a decision filed May 18, 2001, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) classified claimant as “permanently totally disabled” and awarded him benefits.

The State Insurance Fund, the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier, and independent counsel representing the employer appeared throughout the proceedings. While the carrier elected not to appeal from the WCLJ’s decision of May 2001, counsel for the employer filed a timely application for review by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Therein, further development of the record was sought regarding claimant’s classification of having suffered a permanent total disability. The Board dismissed the employer’s application by finding that it lacked standing to file an appeal from the WCLJ’s determination without the participation of the carrier; it found no conflict of interest between them.

Upon this appeal, we find no support for the Board’s ruling that this employer is precluded from filing an independent application for review of a WCLJ’s decision. Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 provides that an appeal to the Board may be filed by “[a]ny party.” It is undisputed that the employer has remained a “party in interest” *(Matter of Edwards v Board of Educ. of City of NY.,*32 AD2d 690, 690 [1969]) throughout these proceedings and, in this role, has filed at least one prior independent appeal of an earlier WCLJ decision which established claimant’s case for a compensable back injury. Before dismissing this proceeding, the Board never gave the employer an opportunity to demonstrate how or if it was adversely affected by the decision under review. For this reason, its finding that there was no conflict of interest between the employer and the carrier is without foundation. In light of the evidence before the Court on this issue, we remit the matter to the Board for a factual inquiry on the issue of standing before making a determination pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 *(see id.*at 690; *917
      *Pigott v Field,*13 AD2d 350, 354 [1961]; *Matter of Communiciar,*WCB No. 0971 3587 [Mar. 13, 2000] [2000 WL 33344675 at *2]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00200

- CR

EX PARTE : MELISSA DAWN WRAGG

On Appeal from the 276th District Court Marion County, Texas Trial Court No. F14444

- A

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Melissa Dawn Wragg was arrested after officers found her in a home where methamphetamine was being manufactured. She filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that her detention in the Marion County Jail was unlawful because “no probable cause exists for the detention.” Specifically, Wragg challenged t he State’s belief that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search that led to her arrest. The trial court denied the application after a hearing, finding that there was probable cause to support the detention. Wragg appeals the denial of her application.

We review a trial court’ s grant or denial of relief under an application for writ of habeas corpus for an abuse of discretion. In re Shaw , 204 S.W.3d 9, 14 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2006, pet. ref’d). The writ of habe as corpus is an extraordinary remedy which will issue only if the applicant has no adequate remedy at law. Ex parte Weise , 55 S.W.3d 617, 619 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Shaw , 204 S.W.3d at 14; Ex parte Brooks , 97 S.W.3d 639, 640 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2002,

no pet .) (denying review of pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus which alleged accused’s arrest was based solely on racial profiling without probable cause or reasonable suspicion because accused could raise issues in suppression motion).

The Texas Co urt of Criminal Appeals has “held that an applicant may not use a pretrial

writ to

. . . challenge the denial of a motion to suppress.” Weise , 55 S.W.3d at 620. We find that Wragg has an adequate remedy at law. She can pursue the claims asserted in h er habeas application in a suppression motion. Id. ; Brooks , 97 S.W.3d at 640 ( A lso noting , “ I f the State3 does not promptly file a case against [the accused] by indictment or information or does not promptly proceed to trial, the Code of Criminal Procedure pr ovides other remedies as well.”). Because Wragg has an adequate remedy at law, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the application. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Wragg’s habeas application.

Bailey C. Moseley Justice

Date Submitted: November 25, 2013 Date Decided: November 26 , 2013

Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,250
<SECURITIES>                                    37,058
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                       468
<INVENTORY>                                      7,564
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,262
<PP&E>                                         304,081
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 694,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,607
<BONDS>                                        481,650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   694,473
<SALES>                                          7,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,242
<CGS>                                           12,816
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,341
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,449
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,847
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,652
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (63,977)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>