alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Aviation Commander talks additive manufacturing at annual summit

/ Published Feb. 7, 2023
RICHMOND, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Sean Tyler participated in a panel discussion about additive manufacturing and how it can be used to support the Department of Defense during the two-day 2023 Military Additive Manufacturing Summit.

Tyler, along with other DLA Aviation employees, attended the 7th annual event held at the Tampa Convention Center in Tampa, Florida, Feb. 1-2. The summit provides an opportunity for military, government and industry professionals to come together and connect, collaborate, and develop strategies concerning additive manufacturing technology.

In addition to Tyler speaking during the panel discussion, the DLA Aviation Richmond team attended the summit to learn more about additive manufacturing and how it could be used within the DLA supply chain to ease lead times, in an attempt to provide more timely support to the nations warfighters.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS PRIOR YEAR RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA EXTRACTED FROM
THE ANNUAL REPORT FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1994
<CASH>                                           7,738
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  172,740
<ALLOWANCES>                                         9
<INVENTORY>                                        793
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               206,398
<PP&E>                                          55,588
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,739
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 396,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          121,257
<BONDS>                                        230,444
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,000
<COMMON>                                       121,251
<OTHER-SE>                                   (114,713)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   396,000
<SALES>                                        818,683
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               818,683
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  783,095
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,903
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,458)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,236)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (352)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (12,479)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,831)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.12)
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Florian Miedel, on Behalf of Sonam Kukreja, Petitioner, v Commissioner of Department of Correction, City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[49 NYS3d 916]

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to reduce bail upon Queens County indictment Nos. 2317/16 and 2318/16.

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Supreme Court, Queens County, did not violate “constitutional or statutory standards” *(People ex rel. Klein v Krueger,*25 NY2d 497, 499 [1969]; *see People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson,*48 NY2d 230 [1979]).

Chambers, J.P, Roman, Miller and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Superior Bancorp;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    

    /s/ C. Stanley BaileyC. Stanley BaileyChief Executive Officer
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 Quarterly Report of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart Grayston, President and chief executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ STUART GRAYSTON                  
|Stuart Grayston                      
|President and chief executive officer
|November 14, 2007                    

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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17425]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT98-58-000]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Refund Report

June 25, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 23, 1998, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National) tendered for filing a refund report pursuant to 
the Commission's September 27, 1996, ``Opinion and Order Approving the 
Gas Research Institute 1997 Research and Development Program'' issued 
in Docket No. RP96-267-000.
    National states that it has refunded the Gas Research Institute 
demand surcharge based on the non-discounted GRI dollars paid by each 
firm shipper during the 1997 calendar year as a percentage of the total 
non-discounted GRI demand dollars paid by all firm shippers. National 
further states that it made these refunds in the form of credits to 
invoices issued on June 11, 1998. National states that the total credit 
amounted to $685,234.
    National states that the notice of the refund and refund amounts 
have been posted on National's EBB and copies of National's filing were 
served on National's jurisdictional customers and interested State 
Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance 
with Section 385. 214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before 
July 2, 1998. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17425 Filed 6-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16866]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Subsequent Purchaser Report.
    Agency Form Number: None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0079.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Burden: 150 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 150 with 2 responses each.
    Avg. Hours Per Response: 30 minutes.
    Needs and Uses: Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), it is 
illegal to engage in interstate or foreign commerce of products 
comprised of endangered fish or wildlife. Certificates of Exemption 
(CE) were issued to persons holding inventories of such items before 
the effective date of the law. Only those persons who hold CE's are 
allowed to engage in interstate or foreign commerce. When selling an 
item, CE holders are responsible for telling purchasers that they must 
file a report if they plan to sell the item. This information is used 
by NOAA's enforcement officers to identify legal items from illegal 
items in the marketplace.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 
10202, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, 
DC 20503.

    Dated: June 18, 1998.
Linda Engelmeier,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 98-16866 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Jones, Appellant.

[57 NYS3d 892]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), dated September 10, 2015, which denied, after a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court (Juviler, J.) rendered April 13, 1990, *728convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree (two counts) and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Supreme Court did not err in finding, on the totality of the record, that the defendant was not deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel *(see Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668, 688 [1984]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; *People v Casey,*149 AD3d 771 [2017]). Counsel made a strategic decision to forgo an alibi defense, and to mount a defense based on an attack on the credibility of the People’s case, which relied heavily on the testimony of an accomplice who had agreed to testify against the defendant in exchange for a lesser sentence.

Additionally, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground that the defendant is actually innocent. The defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he is actually innocent *(see generally People v Hamilton,*115 AD3d 12, 27 [2014]).

Balkin, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.
# DLA leaders visit DLA Indo-Pacific operations in Pearl Harbor

/ Published Sept. 9, 2022
PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii, 
Defense Logistics Agency senior leaders received updates on DLA Indo-Pacific operations while touring agency facilities and meeting local employees August 22-26 in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

The group included DLA Vice Director Brad Bunn; Ruth Vetter, director of DLA General Counsel; Air Force Brig. Gen. Jimmy Canlas, commander of DLA Energy; and David Kless, DLA Energy deputy commander. They met with representatives from DLA Installation Management, DLA Distribution Pearl Harbor, DLA Disposition Services Pearl Harbor and DLA Maritime Pearl Harbor.

Navy Capt. Patrick Blake, DLA Indo-Pacific regional commander, provided an overview of the current theater posture, anticipated changes in future posture and an overview of DLA capabilities in the theater.

A tour of the Maersk Peary, one of three ships contracted by the Military Sealift Command that can conduct underway refueling operations and transfer cargo to other vessels at sea, provided details on how the ships benefit DLA and Navy operations.

A progress report on the consolidation of operations and planning efforts within the DLA Indo-Pacific compound at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam was delivered by John Hamilton, site director for DLA Installation Management Indo-Pacific.

Navy Cmdr. Sean Moody, DLA Distribution Pearl Harbor commanding officer, provided a tour of the Central Receiving, Material Processing Center and Theater Consolidation and Shipping Point. Discussions included DDPH support to the Rim of the Pacific exercise, Pearl Harbor’s historic infrastructure and retail support to Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard.

During a walking tour of DLA Disposition Services Pearl Harbor, hosted by Faron Cordrey, DLA Disposition Services Pacific director, Bunn learned about local operations and met with DLA employees.  

Navy Cmdr. Kara Langford, DLA Maritime Pearl Harbor officer-in-charge, also led a discussion with DLA Headquarters and DLA Indo-Pacific leaders on ordering system issues at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. Bunn toured the Controlled Industrial Area to see submarines in different stages of maintenance, as well.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed September 15, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1573

Lower Tribunal No. F91-5033E

________________

Kelvin Bryant,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, 

Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa 

Tinkler Mendez, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and James A. Odell, Assistant 

Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee. 

Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Adams v. State, 949 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); 

Rogers v. State, 296 So. 3d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020); Morgan v. State, 293 

So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).
No. 10-5817.

#### Chris Jacobs, Petitioner v. Peter Huibregtse, Warden.

562 U.S. 957, 131 S. Ct. 470,

178 L. Ed. 2d 283,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7858.

October 12, 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 Seventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).
# DLA recognizes outstanding non-commissioned officers

/ Published Feb. 19, 2016
Form Approved 

OMB No. 

0920-0210 Exp. 

01/31/2026

Recommended Cigarette Ingredient Reporting Format - FCLAA 

Please attach additional pages if necessary 

Date 

Office on Smoking and Health 

Attn. FCLAA Program Manager 

4770 Buford Hwy., NE, MS S107-7 

Atlanta, GA 30341-3717 

This ingredient report is being submitted pursuant to the Federal Cigarette Labeling and 

Advertising Act (FCLAA), 15 U. S.C. §1335a(a). 

Company Name(s)* 

Brand(s)† 

*If this Ingredient Report is submitted by a designated individual or entity on behalf of a cigarette manufacturer,

packager, or importer, the form must specify on whose behalf the submission is being made.

†Inclusion of the brand name and product type for ingredients is not required under FCLAA. 
 

 

Form Approved 

OMB No. 

0920-0210 Exp. 01/31/2026

Ingredient Name ¶ CAS Registry Number§ 

¶
# C_2014282EN.01003601.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2014 — Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones v OHIM — Copisa Proyectos y Mantenimientos Industriales (CPI COPISA INDUSTRIAL)

(Case T-345/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark CPI COPISA INDUSTRIAL - Earlier Spanish figurative mark Cpi construcción promociones e instalaciones, s.a. and earlier trade name Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, S.A.-C.P.I. - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1) (b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark - No evidence of use of the earlier trade name in the course of trade))

2014/C 282/46

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Copisa Proyectos y Mantenimientos Industriales, SA (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyers)

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 10 April 2013 (Case R 1935/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, SA, and Copisa Proyectos y Mantenimientos Industriales, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.

1

---
# C_2013171EN.01003902.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/39

---

Action brought on 24 April 2013 — Delipapier v Commission

(Case T-238/13)

2013/C 171/78

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Delipapier (Frouard, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.

Group’Hygiène

Commission.

---
No. 09-11111.

#### Howard A. Moniz, Petitioner v. Ken McKee, Warden.

562 U.S. 1087, 131 S. Ct. 691,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9175.

178 L. Ed. 2d 521,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 862, 131 S. Ct. 143, 178 L. Ed. 2d 85, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6080.