alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.1

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
DRS Technologies, Inc.:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 2-87303, No. 2-99986, and No. 333-14487) on Form S-8 and (No. 2-97784, No.
33-33125, No. 33-42886, No. 33-64641, and No. 333-04929) on Form S-3 of DRS
Technologies, Inc. of our reports dated May 11, 1998, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of DRS Technologies, Inc. as of March 31, 1998 and
1997, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity,
and cash flows and related consolidated financial statement schedule for each of
the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 1998, which reports appear or
are incorporated by reference in the March 31, 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K
of DRS Technologies, Inc.

                                          KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
June 26, 1998
#### Donna Gallery, Appellant, v Patrick Messerschmitt, M.D., et al., Respondents.

[54 NYS3d 313]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Rosa, J.), dated September 20, 2015, as denied that branch of her motion which was to vacate a judgment of the same court dated June 2, 2015, which, upon the failure of the plaintiff and her attorney to appear at a compliance conference, and the granting of the defendants’ respective oral applications pursuant to, inter alia, 22 NYCRR 202.27 (b) to dismiss the action, dismissed the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

This medical malpractice action was dismissed by a judgment dated June 2, 2015, after neither the plaintiff nor her attorney appeared at a compliance conference and the Supreme Court granted the respective oral applications of the defendants pursuant to, inter alia, 22 NYCRR 202.27 (b) to dismiss the action. To be relieved of the default in appearing at that conference, the plaintiff was required to show both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Polsky v Simon,*145 AD3d 693, 693 [2016]; *Wright v City of Poughkeepsie,*136 AD3d 809 [2016]; *Mazzio v Jennings,*128 AD3d 1032 [2015]).

Here, even if the plaintiff had shown a reasonable excuse for her default, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff failed to establish that she had a potentially meritorious medical malpractice cause of action. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, a party seeking to vacate a default or to restore a medical malpractice case must submit the affirmation of an expert *(see Mosberg v Elahi,*80 NY2d 941, 942 [1992]; *King v Dobriner,*106 AD3d 1053, 1054 [2013]; *Knowles v*
      *941
      *Schaeffer,*70 AD3d 897, 898 [2010]; *Murray v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*52 AD3d 792 [2008]; *Williams v D’Angelo,*24 AD3d 538 [2005]). Furthermore, the certified medical records submitted by the plaintiff do not demonstrate whether any of the defendants deviated from accepted standards of medical care, much less the nature of the deviation *(see Hagen-Meurer v Balakhane,*127 AD3d 1020, 1021 [2015]; *Nowell v NYU Med. Ctr.,*55 AD3d 573, 574 [2008]; *Bollino v Hitzig,*34 AD3d 711, 711 [2006]). Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to establish that she had a potentially meritorious medical malpractice cause of action, and the court correctly denied that branch of her motion which was to vacate the judgment dismissing the action *(see Ramirez v Islandia Exec. Plaza, LLC,*92 AD3d 747, 748 [2012]; *New Seven Colors Corp. v White Bubble Laundromat, Inc.,*89 AD3d 701, 702 [2011]; *Codoner v Bobby’s Bus Co., Inc.,*85 AD3d 843, 843 [2011]).

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.
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 Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul M. Anderson, Chairman of the
Board and Chief Executive Officer of Duke Energy, certify, 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 results of operations of Duke Energy.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    PAUL M. ANDERSON                                                         
|Paul M. Anderson Chairman of
the Board and Chief Executive Officer March 3, 2006
No. D-2580.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Craig Monard Hunt.

562 U.S. 1040, 131 S. Ct. 629,

178 L. Ed. 2d 457,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9013.

November 15, 2010.

Craig Monard Hunt, of San Francisco, California, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable *458within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                   ------------


         THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION IS PROVIDED BY THE UNDERSIGNED CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF CLARK, INC. ON THE BASIS OF
SUCH OFFICERS' KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF COMPLYING WITH 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002.

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                  -------------

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Clark, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Tom
Wamberg, President and Chief Executive Officer and I, Jeffrey W. Lemajeur, Chief
Financial Officer, of the Company, hereby certify, 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, as
                  amended; and

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



                                            /s/ Tom Wamberg
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name:    Tom Wamberg
                                            Title:   President and
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                            Date:    May 10, 2004



                                            /s/ Jeffrey W. Lemajeur
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name:    Jeffrey W. Lemajeur
                                            Title:   Chief Financial Officer
                                            Date:    May 10, 2004






         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.
Pagsusuri at Paggamot ng Hindi 

Aktibong Tuberculosis (TB)

Hanggang 13 milyong tao sa Estados Unidos ang posibleng mayroong hindi 

aktibong TB (tinatawag din na nakatagong impeksyon sa TB). Kung hindi 

magagamot, 1 sa 10 tao na may hindi aktibong TB ang magkakasakit ng aktibong 

sakit na TB, at maaaring kumalat ang TB sa iba sa pamamagitan ng hangin. 

Makakatulong ka na maiwasan ang pagkalat ng TB.

Upang matuto pa tungkol sa TB at sa kung paano mo mapoprotektahan ang 

iyong sarili at ang iba, bisitahin ang www.cdc.gov/thinktesttreattb

Ang paggamot sa hindi aktibong TB 

ang pinakamainam na paraan 

upang maprotektahan ka mula sa 

pagkakaroon ng aktibong sakit na 

TB. Kung posible, inirerekomenda ng 

CDC ang paggamit ng maikli at 

maginhawang3 3 o 4 na buwang 

paggamot na batay sa rifamycin

para sa hindi aktibong TB.

Maging ang mga taong nakatanggap na ng bakuna laban 

sa TB, na tinatawag ding bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) na 

bakuna, ay dapat ding masuri dahil humihina ang 

bakuna sa paglipas ng panahon.

Makipag-usap sa iyong tagapagbigay ng pangangalagang pangkalusugan 

tungkol sa pagpapasuri kung ikaw ay:

nagtatrabaho sa mga lugar na may 

mataas na panganib ng pagkahawa sa 

TB, tulad ng mga ospital, mga 

kanlungan ng walang tirahan, mga 

pasilidad ng kulungan, at mga 

tahanan ng pangangalaga

nakatira o dating 

nanirahan sa malalaking 

grupo kung saan mas 

karaniwan ang TB, gaya ng 

mga kanlungan ng walang 

tirahan, kulungan, 

o mga bilangguan.

may mas mahinang 

immune system dahil 

sa ilang partikular na 

gamot o kondisyon sa 

kalusugan gaya ng 

diabetes, kanser, at HIV

kamakailang gumugol 

ng oras kasama ng 

isang taong may 

aktibong sakit na TB

ipinanganak sa o 

madalas na 

naglalakbay sa mga 

bansa kung saan 

karaniwan ang TB, 

kabilang ang mga 

nasa Asia, Africa, at 

Latin America

Mag-isip

Magpasuri Magpagamot

Ano ang aking mga 

opsyon sa paggamot?

Anong pagsusuri 

sa TB ang 

kailangan ko?

May dalawang uri ng pagsusuri para sa 

impeksyon sa TB: ang pagsusuri ng TB sa 

dugo at pagsusuri ng TB sa balat. Ang mga 

pagsusuri ng TB sa dugo ang mas pinipiling 

paraan ng pagsusuri ng TB para sa mga taong 

nakatanggap na ng bakuna laban sa TB 

(BCG). Dapat pag-usapan ng mga tagapagbigay ng 

pangangalagang pangkalusugan at mga pasyente 

kung aling pagsusuri ang pinakamainam.

1

2 3

301122

Nanganganib ba akong magkaroon ng 

impeksyon ng TB?
No. 09-11522.

#### Alexander M. Introcaso, Petitioner v. Patrick L. Meehan, et al.

562 U.S. 1125, 131 S. Ct. 852,

178 L. Ed. 2d 582,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9605.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 885, 131 S. Ct. 214, 178 L. Ed. 2d 129, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6990.
# Troop Support honors 240 years of America’s Navy

/ Published Oct. 14, 2015
PHILADELPHIA, 
For the past 240 years, American sailors have selflessly dedicated their lives to the world’s largest Navy, a Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support senior leader said during a ceremony in Philadelphia Oct. 13, honoring the service’s birthday.“Our Navy has helped improve the quality of life for countless people worldwide through its humanitarian assistance and outreach efforts, Navy Capt. Ricardo Wilson, the DLA Troop Support director of Procurement Process Support said. “Untold thousands have lived by the words engraved on the Naval Academy chapel door, ‘Not for self, but for country.’”In honor of this occasion, Wilson, who is the oldest Naval personnel at DLA Troop Support, and Lt. Andrew Heisler, who works in the Subsistence supply chain, cut the ceremonial birthday cake prior to the weekly staff meeting.On October 13, 1775, the Continental Congress established a naval force to work with privateers to tactically stop the transporting of British supplies into North America.According to Navy.mil, the service has grown from the small fleet of ships in 1775 to now more than 328,000 active duty personnel, more than 110, 000 reservists and more than 270 deployable battle force ships.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick Bowie, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 607]

Application by the *650appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated April 5, 2011 *(.People v Bowie,*83 AD3d 729 [2011]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered October 4, 2007.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see *Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]).

Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
No. 10-6792.

#### Ryan Adams Rodgers, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1020, 131 S. Ct. 548,

178 L. Ed. 2d 402,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8453.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 379 Fed. Appx. 151.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Hosannah, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 826]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bárbaro, J.), rendered May 1, 2002, convicting him of assault in *459the second degree, assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied his right to a fair trial. First, the defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly limited his ability to impeach the complainant is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v George,*67 NY2d 817 [1986]; *People v Sutherland,*280 AD2d 622 [2001]; *People v Mercado,*135 AD2d 661 [1987]). In any event, this contention is without merit *(see People v Bornholdt,*33 NY2d 75 [1973], *cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York,*416 US 905 [1974]; *People v Sorge,*301 NY 198 [1950]; *People v Savastano,*280 AD2d 498 [2001]; *People v Singh,*262 AD2d 431 [1999]; *People v Coleman,*195 AD2d 475 [1993]; *People v Meade,*198 AD2d 307 [1993]). In addition, viewing the court’s charge as a whole, the instructions regarding credibility adequately conveyed to the jury the appropriate standard by which to evaluate the testimony of the complainant *(see People v Brown,*220 AD2d 606 [1995]; *People v Inniss,*192 AD2d 553 [1993], *affd*83 NY2d 653 [1994]; *People v Sherman,*156 AD2d 889 [1989]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE , Appellant,

v.

CLARA LUZ RESENDIZ and DANIEL ANDRES MARAVILLA,

A ppellee s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 7 1 0

_____________________________/ Opinion filed January 6, 201 6

. An appeal from an order of the Department of Revenue. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appell ant. No Appearance for Appellee s

.

PER CURIAM.

The Florida De partment of Revenue raises two issues in this appeal of a Final Administrative Support O rder determining the child support obligation of Appellee Daniel Andres Maravilla (the father)

. I n t he first issue, the Department argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by concluding that he lacked authority to enter a support order exceeding the amounts set forth in the2 Department’s Proposed Final Administrative Support Order based on new information developed at an evidentiary hearing that would increase the father’s child support obligation under the statutory child support guidelines. In the second issue, the Department argues that the Final Administrative Support Order is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Consistent with our opinion in Department of Revenue v. Reyes , No. 1D15

- 707 ( Fla. 1st DCA December 31 , 2015), w e resolve both issues by concluding that the ALJ was required to establish the father’s child support oblig ation based on the evidence presented at the hearing. By limiting the father’s child support obligation to the amount s contained in the proposed order, notwithstanding the evidence presented, the Final Administrative Support Order is contrary to Florida la w and not supported by competent , substantial evidence. Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand for further proceedi ngs

. WETHERELL , ROWE , and RAY , J J

. , CONCUR.
No. 10-5013.

#### John W. Brooks, Petitioner v. Lubbock County Hospital District, dba UMC Health System.

562 U.S. 1038, 131 S. Ct. 589,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8796.

178 L. Ed. 2d 429,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 899, 131 S. Ct. 228, 178 L. Ed. 2d 151, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6314.
#### Com. v. Brown

12/01/2015

396 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 133 A.3d 81
# DSCC associate featured in national magazine

/ Published Jan. 31, 2024
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
For Greg Ramsey, 2023 went out with a bang and 2024 is heading in the same direction. Now, he has one more notch to add to his belt – he was featured on the cover of Careers & the disABLED Magazine released this week. The national magazine targets people with disabilities, offering career guidance and recruitment for those at the undergraduate, graduate and professional levels. Each issue features a special Braille section.

Ramsey, the installation support agreement manager for Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management – Columbus, is legally blind and recently garnered the Defense Department’s award for outstanding employee with a disability in 2023 for his work at the Defense Supply Center Columbus.

In the magazine’s winter issue, Ramsey shares how he overcame obstacles to complete his bachelor’s degree, obtain contract experience and land a job with DLA, where he continues to climb the ladder to success. DSCC Multimedia’s lead photographer Arthur Hylton produced the cover photo and supporting images for Ramsey’s profile.  

Read more about Ramsey’s journey here.
#### In the Matter of Brett Stuttard, Respondent, v Kelly Stuttard, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 902]

*1416Appeal from an order of Family Court, Oneida County (Griffith, J.), entered December 29, 2000, which, inter alia, found that respondent willfully violated an order of visitation.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by vacating those parts finding that respondent willfully violated the order entered April 21, 2000 in June and July 2000 and vacating the punishment and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Oneida County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order finding her in contempt of court based upon her willful violations of an order of visitation and ordering her incarcerated for 12 hours. Enforcement of that order has been stayed pending appeal. We agree with respondent that Family Court’s findings that respondent willfully violated the order of visitation on certain dates in June and July 2000 do not have a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see generally Matter of De Felice v De Felice,*303 AD2d 1017 [2003]; *Matter of Watts v Watts,*290 AD2d 822, 824 [2002], *lv denied*97 NY2d 614 [2002]). The order of visitation states that visitation would cease unless petitioner provided respondent with a copy of a certification or record of successful completion of an anger management course by June 10, 2000. Such copy was not provided to respondent until July 7, 2000, and thus we conclude that respondent did not willfully violate the order of visitation on the disputed dates in June and July 2000. We further conclude, however, that the court’s finding that respondent willfully violated the order of visitation by withholding visitation on May 25, 2000, has a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see generally De Felice,*303 AD2d at 1017; *Watts,*290 AD2d at 824), and thus, we will not disturb the court’s finding of contempt with respect thereto *(see generally Matter of McCormick v Axelrod,*59 NY2d 574, 583 [1983], *mot to amend remittitur granted*60 NY2d 652 [1983]). However, while the court has the statutory authority to impose a period of incarceration for that willful violation *(see*Family Ct Act § 846-a), in light of our conclusion that there were no willful violations of the order of visitation in June or July 2000, we modify the order by vacating those parts finding that respondent willfully violated the order of visitation in June and July 2000 and vacating the punishment, and we remit the matter to Family Court, Oneida County, to impose a punishment in its *1417discretion based only on the May 2000 incident *(see generally People v Riela,*7 NY2d 571, 578 [1960], *mot to amend remittitur granted*8 NY2d 1008 [1960], *rearg denied*8 NY2d 1011 [1960]; *Sobotka v Myers,*50 AD2d 550 [1975]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Kehoe, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              NOV-02-1996
<CASH>                                      3,450,000
<SECURITIES>                                8,897,000         
<RECEIVABLES>                              16,438,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                1,001,000
<INVENTORY>                                84,703,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          115,338,000 
<PP&E>                                    269,175,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            150,464,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            257,260,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     102,948,000
<BONDS>                                   100,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         115,000
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                 26,081,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              257,260,000
<SALES>                                   754,077,000 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          754,077,000
<CGS>                                     563,616,000         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             563,616,000 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               80,400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          9,846,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             2,717,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         2,717,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                2,717,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.24
        



</TABLE>
# Mike DeWine, Governor of Ohio

/ Published Nov. 6, 2018

Mike DeWine was elected to serve as the 70th Governor of the State of Ohio on November 6, 2018. He has led a long and distinguished career in public service, focusing on protecting Ohio children and families. Born in Yellow Springs, Ohio, DeWine graduated from Miami University and Ohio Northern University College of Law.

He began his political career as a prosecutor for Green County, Ohio, before being elected to the Ohio State Senate. DeWine subsequently served as a U.S. Representative for Ohio’s 7th District from 1983 until 1991, United States Senator from 1995 to 2007, Ohio’s 59th Lieutenant Governor, and the 50th Attorney General of Ohio from 2011 to 2019 prior to his election as Governor.