alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Employee Spotlight: James Purtell

/ Published July 28, 2023
RICHMOND, Va., 
*Employee spotlight regularly features outstanding non-supervisory personnel from throughout the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and other DLA employees on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. Organizational directors may submit names of employees they wish to feature in this column to DLA Aviation Public Affairs.*

**Name:** James Purtell

**Organization:** DLA Aviation at Ogden

**Years of service:** 1 year

**What is your job title and what do you do specifically?**I am a security manager within the administrative support staff and the point of contact on all security related issues for over 400 DLA Aviation employees. Some of my duties include assisting them with various security related forms and providing training for all new employees.     

**What do you like most about your job and why?** The best thing about my job is the satisfaction I get in supporting the organization’s employees and our command staff.  Being the ‘go to guy’ when someone needs help with a security issue, completing forms, or any other issue is a great feeling!

**If you could speak directly to the warfighters you support, what would you tell them?** I would tell the warfighter that they give everything they have every day to support our nation and are incredibly important!  I’m proud to have a part in the success of their mission and its goals!

**What are your best practices for achieving goals or accomplishing tasks?** My best practice for accomplishing my tasks is prioritizing and completing those that have shorter turn-a-round requirements first. I also pay attention to any tasks with urgency that may cause a work stoppage if left unaccomplished too long.   

**What is the most surprising/unexpected thing others don’t know about you?**A surprising thing about me is that I’m very type A personality. I have to stay organized, or I will become somewhat lost or forget things.

**What are some of your passions outside of work?** Outside of work, I love working out, running marathons, and working in the yard.

**What is your proudest accomplishment and why?** My proudest accomplishment is that I ran the Boston Marathon in Boston, Massachusetts. It is the only race in the world you must run a certain qualification time to be able to enter and I have been fortunate enough to have run 10 Boston Marathons.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2658 

To amend the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 to provide 

for the inclusion of certain workers in the exemption from numerical 

limitations on H–2B workers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2019 

Mr. WITTMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 

2005 to provide for the inclusion of certain workers 

in the exemption from numerical limitations on H–2B 

workers, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commercial Fishing 

5 and Seafood Business Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2658 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN WORKERS IN EXEMPTION 

2 FROM NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS ON H–2B 

3 WORKERS. 

4 Section 14006 of the Department of Defense Appro5 priations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–287) is amended to 

6 read as follows: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 14006. The numerical limitation contained in 

8 section 214(g)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality 

9 Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(B)) shall not apply to any non10 immigrant alien issued a visa or otherwise provided status 

11 under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 

12 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)) who is employed (or has received 

13 an offer of employment)— 

14 ‘‘(1) on a commercial fishing vessel or shrimp 

15 trawler; or 

16 ‘‘(2) in the processing of— 

17 ‘‘(A) fish or fishery products; or 

18 ‘‘(B) baitfish. 

19 Terms used in this section have the meanings given 

20 such terms in section 123.3 of title 21, Code of Fed21 eral Regulations.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2014315EN.01005901.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/59

---

Order of the General Court of 26 May 2014 — AK v Commission

(Case T-288/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Reports procedure - Career development report - Appraisal for the years 2001/2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2008 - Delay in drawing up career development reports - Non-material damage - Loss of opportunity for promotion - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))

2014/C 315/99

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: AK (Esbo, Finland) (represented by: originally by D. de Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, then by D. de Abreu and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C.Berardis-Kayser, Agents and B. Wägenbauer, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2013 in Case F-91/10 AK v Commission [2013] ECR II-0000 seeking the annulment of that judgment.

AK

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | AK is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

AK is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013.

1

---
No. 10-6734.

#### Frederick March, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1019, 131 S. Ct. 544,

178 L. Ed. 2d 399,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8349.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 76.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q REPORT OF  REDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC.  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 U.S.C. SS.SS.
1350(a) AND (b))

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), the
undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation.

Date: May 5, 2011/s/ GILBERT M. CASSAGNE Gilbert M. Cassagne, Chief Executive Officer


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), is not
a part of the Form 10-Q to which it refers and is, to the extent permitted by law, provided by the above signatory to the extent of his knowledge.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation and will be retained by
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
================================================================================


                                  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 the Annual Report of Terra  Systems,  Inc., on Form
10-KSB for the year ended  December 31, 2001, as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  Clayton Timothy,  CEO of
the Company, certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Clayton Timothy
------------------------------------------
Clayton Timothy
CEO
(Principal Executive Officer)









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# National Police Week spotlight: Lt. Noe Hernandez

/ Published May 16, 2023
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
*Editor’s Note: May 14-20 is National Police Week. This is a part of a series of spotlights highlighting members of the Defense Logistics Agency Police Force who work 24/7 to protect DLA people and property.*

**Your name:**Lt. Noe Hernandez

**Job title and location:** Training coordinator for DLA Headquarters at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

**What inspired you to become a police officer?** I enjoy interacting with and assisting our customers and people throughout the community. This field is also very challenging.

**When did you join DLA’s police force and what did you do before you got here?** I joined in October 2014 after working for the Army.

**Describe your typical workday in 2-3 sentences.** Being assigned to training is a little different than being a regular officer. A regular day for me is answering tons of emails and a lot of planning. Most of the planning includes dates and times for quarterly and yearly training for things such as active shooter exercises, weapons qualification, etc. 

**Describe the most dangerous situation you’ve encountered on duty.**Every situation we respond to can potentially be dangerous, from a duress alarm in an office or a couple’s dispute in the parking lot to an assault with a deadly weapon at the gate – all calls I’ve personally responded to here at DLA Headquarters. These are the kinds of things DLA police respond to on a regular basis.

**What’s the hardest part of being a police officer and why?** Constantly judging situations. Not everything you see is what it appears to be. Some things require a little more context than what you see or hear at that moment.

**What do you like most about your job and why?** Interacting with people from all walks of life. I feel it makes me a well-rounded person to meet and talk to so many people who are going through so much or have already gone through so much in life. I get to hear tons of real-life experience and receive so much good knowledge. 

**Do you have any funny stories you can share from your time protecting people and property?** While standing at the main entrance for DLA an individual told me that a chicken was running around the parking lot. It turned out to be surprisingly true. Someone had accidentally brought it in on their truck. 

**What’s the biggest security infraction you see employees make?** Piggybacking, or letting others in the door without scanning an ID.

**What are you passionate about outside of work?** Music.
No. 09-10999.

#### Tabatha White, Petitioner v. Jewel Steele, Warden.

562 U.S. 858, 131 S. Ct. 130,

178 L. Ed. 2d 78,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6223.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 602 F.3d 707.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JIMMY JEROME RAYE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-686

[May 30, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County; Michael C. Heisey, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 472004CF000320A.

Jimmy Jerome Raye, Century, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
NO. 07-09 -006 4-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C JU LY20, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ GU STAVO M EN DO ZA GALLA RD O, Appel lan t

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee s

_________

_________

_________

___ FRO M T HE 64 th DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HA L E CO UNT Y; NO. A17 752 -080 8; HON. ROBERT W . KINKAI D, JR., PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ ON ABA TEMENT AND REMAN D

_________

_________

_________

____ Bef ore QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. App ellant Gusta v o Mend oza Gallardo ap pea ls from his conviction for the o f fense of driv ing w hile into x icated . On May 11, 20 09, the clerk’s record w as f iled. T he rep orter’s
re cord w as due on Ma y 18, 2009. On Ma y

26, 2009, thi s Cou rt n o ti f ie d t he repor ter by lette r that the reco rd h ad not b een f iled and t o ad v ise the Court of the sta tus of

the reco rd
on or before June 5, 20 09. On J une 5, 2009, the re por ter fil ed a moti on for extens ion of2

t i me t o fi l e t h e r e c o r d , w h i c h w a s g r a n t e d t o J u l y 6 , 2 0 0 9 , w i t h t h e a d mo n i ti on th at no further extens ion s w oul d be g ra nted. To dat e, no r epor ter ’s r ecord has been filed

. Accordin gly , w e ab ate this app eal and rem and t he cause t o the 6 4th Distri ct Court of Hale Count y

(tri al cour t ) fo r fu rther proce edin gs. Upon rema nd, the trial court sha ll immedi atel y

ca use noti ce of a hear ing to b e g iv en and, thereafter, co nducta he ar ing to deter mine:
w hen t he repor ter ’s r ecord c an reason abl y be t ra nsc ri bed i nto w ri tten form and filed i n a mann er thatdoes notfurth er

del ay the p ro sec uti on of thi s a ppeal or h a ve the p ra cti cal eff ectof dep riv ing the app ellant of their rig ht to app eal.
The tr ial co urt s hal l caus e the hear ing to be transc ri bed. So too s hal l it1) ex ecut e findi ng s o f f actand conc lusi o n s o f law address ing the foreg oin g i ss ues, 2) ca use to be dev elo ped a suppl emental cl er k’ s record c ontai nin g i ts findi ng s o f f actand conc lus ion s o f law and all orders it may

iss ue as a re sul t of

its hear ing in thi s mat ter , and 3) ca use to be dev elo ped a re por

ter ’s r ecord transc ri bin g the ev ide nce and arg uments pr esent ed atthe aforementio ned hea ri ng , i f any

. Addi ti onal ly , t he di str ic t c our t s hal l then file the supp lem ent al clerk’s and repo rter’s records transcribing the hea ring w ith the clerk of this
cour t on or before Aug ust19, 2009. Shoul d fu rt h er ti me be ne eded by

the tr ial co urt t o per form thes e tas ks , t hen s ame mustbe req uest ed befor e Aug ust19, 2009. It is so order ed. Per C ur iam

Do not p ubl is h.
# C_2015138EN.01004902.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/49

---

Order of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Métropole Gestion v OHIM — Metropol (METROPOL)

(Case T-431/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Word mark METROPOL - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Failure to apply for renewal of the registration of the mark - Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 138/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Métropole Gestion (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-A. Roux Steinkühler, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd (Moscow, Russia)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2013 (Cases affaires R 723/2012-2 and R 845/2012-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Métropole Gestion and Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Métropole Gestion and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Métropole Gestion and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

1

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTSAS  OF AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         809
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               809
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,647
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          500
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       8,050
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,903)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,647
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               19,920
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19,920)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (19,920)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (19,920)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.002)


</TABLE>
No. 10-7123.

#### Pedro Perez-Godinez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1074, 131 S. Ct. 672,

178 L. Ed. 2d 500,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9184.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 388 Fed. Appx. 633.
No. 10-5287.

#### Betty Carolyn Smithey, Petitioner v. Arizona.

562 U.S. 1045, 131 S. Ct. 596,

178 L. Ed. 2d 437,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8827.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6924

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

COLE MACHADO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief

District Judge. (2:11-cr-00096-RBS-TEM-1; 2:13-cv-00040-RBS)

Submitted: October 28, 2013 Decided: November 13, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cole Machado, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cole Machado seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Machado has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED