alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Agency receives 9th meritorious unit award from DOD

/ Published Aug. 7, 2023
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
The Defense Logistics Agency’s support for the nation’s COVID-19 response, Afghanistan withdrawal and hurricane relief have earned the agency its ninth Joint Meritorious Unit Award.

The award will be officially presented during the change of responsibility ceremony for DLA’s senior enlisted leader 10 a.m. Aug. 11 at the McNamara Headquarters Complex.

The JMUA covers performance from January 2019 through December 2021. In that time, DLA surged to meet warfighter requirements globally during the pandemic response, delivering millions of test kits and personal protective equipment.

DLA also delivered over 832,000 COVID-19 vaccines to 97 military treatment facilities in 35 countries, as well as 4.5 billion gloves, 6.7 million goggles and 4.8 million face shields to various locations.

After Hurricane Ida in 2021, the agency deployed members to support the Federal Emergency Management Agency, arranged fuel deliveries to Louisiana, and processed almost 800 trailers of meals, water and medical supplies.

The agency provided supplies for evacuee processing and safe-haven buildup during operations Allies Refuge and Allies Welcome as well.

Civilian employees will receive a JMUA lapel pin. Service members who were permanently assigned or attached to DLA by official orders from Jan. 1, 2019, to Dec. 31, 2021, may wear the JMUA ribbon, which is placed after the Presidential Unit Citation but before service unit awards.

DLA was last awarded the JMUA in December 2019 for contributions to military readiness, federal agency support and humanitarian assistance between Sept. 16, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2018. The period included DLA’s response to the Ebola outbreak in Liberia, as well as greater support to the nation’s nuclear enterprise and federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service as it fought historic wildfires.

The agency’s first JMUA was awarded in October 1991 for performance during the Gulf War. Subsequent awards recognized support to named operations, whole-of-government responses or significant savings.

Authorized by the secretary of defense in 1981, the JMUA is awarded to joint activities for meritorious achievement or service for actions in combat, a declared national emergency or extraordinary circumstances involving national interest.
No. 10-5447.

#### ZoAnn Brown, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 922, 131 S. Ct. 301,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7302.

178 L. Ed. 2d 195,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
No. 10-7088.

#### Gerardo Avina-Martinez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1053, 131 S. Ct. 623,

178 L. Ed. 2d 452,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8882.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 388 Fed. Appx. 754.
#### Efrain Matos, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 324]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered June 9, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate his note of issue, and order, same court and Justice, entered Janu*533ary 19, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to comply with outstanding discovery demands, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in vacating plaintiff’s note of issue where plaintiff’s former counsel made a material misstatement that discovery was complete. A note of issue should be vacated where “it is based upon a certificate of readiness that incorrectly states that all discovery has been completed” *(Nielsen v New York State Dormitory Auth.,*84 AD3d 519, 520 [1st Dept 2011]). Since discovery was not completed, the motion court correctly vacated the note of issue *(see Gomes v Valentine Realty LLC,*32 AD3d 699, 700 [1st Dept 2006]; *Cromer v Yellen,*268 AD2d 381 [1st Dept 2000]). Upon vacatur of the note of issue, the case was restored to its pre-note of issue status *(see Tejeda v Dyal,*125 AD3d 578 [1st Dept 2015]). Accordingly, the court properly granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to comply with outstanding discovery demands.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Gesmer and Singh, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



The undersigned officer of Albany Molecular
Research, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Company’s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgated
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii)
of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of
the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates
it by reference.



|Date: August 9, 2012 | /s/ Mark T. Frost                                                                   | 
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                     | Name: Mark T. Frost                                                                
|                     | Title: Senior Vice President, Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Section 1350 Certification of**

**the Chief Executive Officer**

I, James R. Bazet, the chief executive officer of Cobra Electronics Corporation, certify that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CobraElectronics Corporation for the annual period ended December 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information containedin the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cobra Electronics Corporation and its subsidiaries.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2641 

To require the President, or a designee of the President, to provide frequent 

press briefings covering the official business of the President to the 

White House press corps. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2019 

Mr. HIMES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To require the President, or a designee of the President, 

to provide frequent press briefings covering the official 

business of the President to the White House press 

corps. 

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 ‘‘Free Press Act of 

5 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS. 

7 (a) REQUIRED BRIEFING.—Not less than 2 times per 

8 week, the President, or a designee of the President, shall 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2641 IH

1 brief the members of the press assigned to report on the 

2 White House on the official business of the President. 

3 (b) TRANSMISSION TO THE PUBLIC.—Each brief de4 scribed under subsection (a) shall be recorded by video and 

5 transmitted to the public. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
#### People v Bell

4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1695 (Monroe)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16418]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Extension of the Period for Providing Comments Concerning the 
Proposed Revision of the NRCS Policy for Nutrient Management Technical 
and Program Assistance Activities

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department 
of Agriculture.

ACTION: Extension of the period for providing comments concerning the 
proposed revision of the NRCS policy for nutrient management technical 
and program assistance activities.

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

SUMMARY: NRCS advertised a notice of intention to adopt a revised 
policy for nutrient management related technical and program assistance 
activities in the Federal Register on April 22, 1998 (63FR19889). This 
notice is located on pages 19889-19892 (Vol 63, Number 77). Published 
with the notice was draft 10a of the proposed policy. Because of the 
significant public interest in this proposed policy revision, NRCS has 
extended the comment period for an additional thirty (30) days.

EFFECTIVE DATES: Comments must be received by July 22, 1998. This 
revised policy will be adopted after the close of the comment period. 
It will be issued as either part 503 of the NRCS National Agronomy 
Manual or in the NRCS General Manual.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions or comments about this 
policy should be directed to the Ecological Sciences Division, NRCS, 
Washington, DC. Submit questions or comments in writing to Charles H. 
Lander, Nutrient Management Specialist, NRCS, Post Office Box 2890, 
Room 6155-S, Washington, DC 20013-2890.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 requires NRCS to make available for 
public review and comment proposed revisions to conservation practice 
standards used to carry out the highly erodible land and wetland 
provisions of the law. NRCS will receive comments relative to the 
proposed changes through July 22, 1998. Following that period, a 
determination will be made by NRCS regarding disposition of those 
comments, and a final determination of change will be made.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on June 10, 1998.
Pearlie S. Reed,
Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
[FR Doc. 98-16418 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
# C_2015007EN.01003301.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2014 — Repsol v OHIM — Adell Argiles (ELECTROLINERA)

(Case T-308/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ELECTROLINERA - Earlier national word mark ELECTROLINERA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 007/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Repsol, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Melgar, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Josep María Adell Argiles (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially M. García Jiménez and A. Zuazo Araluze, lawyers)

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 First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2013 (Case R 1565/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Josep María Adell Argiles and Repsol, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) of 7 March 2013 (Case R 1565/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Josep María Adell Argiles and Repsol, SA. In so far as concerns the ‘industrial oils and greases; lubricants; fuels (including motor spirit)’ in Class 4 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) of 7 March 2013 (Case R 1565/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Josep María Adell Argiles and Repsol, SA. In so far as concerns the ‘industrial oils and greases; lubricants; fuels (including motor spirit)’ in Class 4 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         451,663
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  121,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (28,896)
<INVENTORY>                                    893,982
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,646,709
<PP&E>                                       1,117,085
<DEPRECIATION>                               (913,763)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,220,325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          285,196
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        97,483
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,176,370
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   435,129
<SALES>                                      1,040,051
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,040,051
<CGS>                                          542,914
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  542,914
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               414,871
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,876
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 44,390
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             43,590
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,590
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
# C_2013325EN.01000802.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 June 2013 — BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes, Stefan Potsch

(Case C-348/13)

2013/C 325/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BestWater International GmbH

Applicant:

Defendants: Michael Mebes, Stefan Potsch

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the embedding, within one’s own website, of another person’s work made available to the public on a third-party website, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC, (1) even where that other person’s work is not thereby communicated to a new public and the communication of the work does not use a specific technical means which differs from that of the original communication?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

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 Annual Report of Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack C. Bridges, Executive Vice-President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



/s/    Jack C. BridgesJack C. BridgesExecutive Vice-PresidentDate: April 15, 2009
2017-0339.

#### Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake.

Lorain App. No. 15CA010804 and 15CA010873, 2016-Ohio-8201.
# C_2014085EN.01001203.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Rohm Semiconductor GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

(Case C-666/13)

2014/C 85/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rohm Semiconductor GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld

Defendant:

Questions referred
   (1)

Questions referred

1

| 1. | Does the fact that goods have an individual function within the meaning of heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature mean that they may not be classified in heading 8541, despite their assembly? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the fact that goods have an individual function within the meaning of heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature mean that they may not be classified in heading 8541, despite their assembly?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: In what circumstances are transmitter/receiver modules of the type described in more detail in the grounds, which have an individual function within the meaning of heading 8543, to be regarded as parts of machines or apparatus in heading 8543? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: In what circumstances are transmitter/receiver modules of the type described in more detail in the grounds, which have an individual function within the meaning of heading 8543, to be regarded as parts of machines or apparatus in heading 8543?

---

(1)  Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002, amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1).

1

---
#### In the Matter of Randi E. Alarcon (Admitted as Randi Elaine Alarcon), a Disbarred Attorney.

[57 NYS3d 397]

Motion by Randi E. Alarcon for reinstatement to the Bar as an attorney and counselor-at-law. Ms. Alarcon was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on June 26, 2002, under the name Randi Elaine Alarcon. By opinion and order of this Court dated August 12, 2008, Ms. Alarcon was disbarred based on her conviction of a felony and her name was stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective October 4, 2007 (see *Matter of Alarcon,*54 AD3d 101 [2008]). By decision and order on motion of this Court dated July 13, 2016, Ms. Alarcon’s motion for reinstatement was held in abeyance and the matter was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness to investigate and report on her character and general fitness to practice law.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, and upon the report of the Committee on Character and Fitness and the exhibits annexed thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that, effective immediately, Randi Elaine Alarcon is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to restore the name of Randi Elaine Alarcon to the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Barros, JJ., concur.
# Black History Month: Remembering ‘Six Triple Eight’

/ Published Feb. 14, 2024
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
In celebration of Black History Month, the Female Mentoring and Morale Program Executive Board is offering a unique opportunity for all service members, Army civilians and cadets to join a virtual mentoring session on Feb. 22 from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. EST, honoring the ‘Sheroes of the U.S. Army’s 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion.’

The 6888th, also known as ‘Six Triple Eight,’ was the only all-Black, all-female, Women’s Army Corps unit to serve overseas during World War II. The primary mission of the ‘Six Triple Eight’ was to sort the two- to three-year backlog of undelivered mail for U.S. service members in England and France. Their motto was “No Mail, Low Morale.”

The unit was organized on March 4, 1945, in Birmingham, England, and it contained approximately 850 officers and enlisted personnel who formed four companies. Whereas most Black units in the military contained white officers, every position in the 6888th was staffed by Black women. The unit was commanded by then-Maj. Charity Adams, namesake of the U.S. Army's Virginia installation Fort Gregg-Adams.

Guest Speakers for the virtual mentoring session include:
      - Retired Army Col. Edna Cummings – Veteran & champion of the Congressional Gold Medal awarded to the 6888th.  
      - Retired Army Master Sgt. Elizabeth Anne Helm-Frazier – Veteran & filmmaker/co-producer of the 6888th Documentary: “No Mail, Low Morale”

Registration Link:

https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZApcemoqDItH9Is5Q0oTai38NUk3_NkhorE

For more information, email the FMMP Executive Board:

usarmy.gregg-adams.futures-cmd.mbx.f--mentoring-and-morale-progr@army.mil