alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
                
                Defense Logistics Agency
                        The Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency
                    DLA
            Search
                        Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                            Search
                    Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                        Search
    Home

    What DLA Offers
    
        Excess Property Disposal

    Document Services

    Products

    Services

    Programs

    Working With DLA
    
        Applications

    Small Business

    Federal and International Cataloging

    Defense Data Standards

    Events

    Procurement Policies

    Government Programs

    Forms

    Organizations
    
        DLA Headquarters

    DLA Aviation

    DLA Disposition Services

    DLA Distribution

    DLA Energy

    DLA Land and Maritime

    DLA Troop Support

    DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM

    DLA Europe & Africa

    DLA Indo-Pacific

    Customer Support
    
        Self Help Tools

    How to Order

    Find Your Order

    Customer Facing Offices

    Training

    Brochures

    Warfighter Support

    Customer Service Management

    Careers

    About DLA
    
        Contact Us

    Locations

    Leaders

    News

    History

    Media Gallery

    DLA Campaigns  Home
  Land and Maritime
  About
  DLA Land and Maritime Image Galleries
 DLA Land and Maritime images
 Supply Chain Alliance and Exhibition
 DLA Land and Maritime News
 Hall of Fame Ceremonies
 DSCC Activities
 DLA Land and Maritime Hall of Fame ceremonies
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (3.59 MB)
 
 2022 National Police Week DSCC Police Week
 Photo Gallery
 2024 DLA Supply Chain Alliance Conference and Exhibition Image Gallery
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (3.59 MB)
 
 2022 National Police Week DSCC Police Week
 Photo Gallery
 DLA Land and Maritime news
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (3.59 MB)
 
 2022 National Police Week DSCC Police Week
 Photo Gallery
 DSCC activities
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (3.59 MB)
 
 2022 National Police Week DSCC Police Week
 Photo Gallery
 Contact UsSite IndexStrategic PlanDLA IG HotlineFOIANo FEAR ActWhistleblower ProtectionDLA CareersImagesWebmasterEEOSection 508Public AffairsSAPRExternal Links DisclaimerDOD Information Quality GuidelinesPrivacy/SecurityUSA.govDOD Web PolicyDOD Open GovernmentPlain Language
                    Stay Connected
            
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gloria Rodriguez, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 593]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered June 7, 2002, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of murder in the first degree, and sentencing her to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was not entitled to the assignment of new counsel in connection with her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. There was no conflict of interest adversely affecting counsel’s representation of defendant *(see Cuyler v Sullivan,*446 US 335, 348-350 [1980]). The information provided by counsel essentially reiterated matters already in the record *(see People v Burgos,*298 AD2d 190 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 580 [2003]), and was not material to the issues raised by defendant in her plea withdrawal application. Furthermore, the court expressly stated that in denying the application it was relying on the plea allocution and on defendant’s statements made in support of her application. Accordingly, counsel’s statements could not have influenced the court’s decision *(see e.g. People v Nawabi,*265 AD2d 156 [1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 865 [1999]).

Defendant’s application to withdraw her guilty plea was properly denied after a proper inquiry in which defendant was afforded a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The record establishes that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.
#### Eileen T. Brown, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Joseph M. Brown, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v 3392 Bar Corp., Doing Business as Frenchy’s Bar, et al., Appellants.

[768 NYS2d 609]

*325Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about October 23, 2002, which granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to amend their complaint to add the corporate entity as a party defendant, and denied as premature the motion of defendants Alevis and French to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims against them, unanimously modified, on the law, defendants’ motion granted to the extent of dismissing the complaint as against the individual defendants, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiffs demonstrated that the claim asserted against the proposed corporate defendant arose out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence as that asserted in the original complaint, and that their failure to name that corporate party in the original pleadings was attributable to a mistake in identifying the owner of the establishment. They also demonstrated that the corporate defendant was united in interest with the originally named defendant, Frenchy’s Bar, which is located at 3392 East Tremont Avenue. A judgment against Frenchy’s Bar would similarly affect 3392 Bar Corp. Furthermore, Alevis and French, the corporate officers, were the sole owners of that property. Those who constituted 3392 Bar Corp. at the time of the incident were properly served with the summons and complaint, and thus knew or should have known that the corporate defendant would have been named as a party to the lawsuit had it not been for plaintiffs’ oversight *(see Mondello v New York Blood Ctr.—Greater N.Y. Blood Program,*80 NY2d 219, 226 [1992]; *Yaniv v Taub,*256 AD2d 273, 275 [1998]). The amended pleading properly related back to the original summons and complaint (CPLR 203 [f]).

Nor have defendants articulated any prejudice that would result from late addition of the corporate party as a defendant. There is no indication that the corporate defendant will be hindered in preparing its case *(see Loomis v Civetta Corinno*
      *326
      *Constr. Corp.,*54 NY2d 18, 23 [1981]), or that plaintiffs’ initial omission was for the purpose of gaining tactical advantage in this litigation *(see Buran v Coupal,*87 NY2d 173, 181 [1995]).

The court erred, however, in failing to dismiss the action as against defendants Alevis and French. Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts implying individual abuse of the privilege of doing business in the corporate form, resulting in harm to the decedent *(see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.,*82 NY2d 135, 141-142 [1993]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Williams and Friedman, JJ.
Appendix	C

LandBros	Aerial	Photography,	L.L.C.

Phantom	3	Professional	

Quick	Start	Guide
No. 10-6771.

#### Shahkene Joseph, Petitioner v. New York.

562 U.S. 1093, 131 S. Ct. 797,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9503.

178 L. Ed. 2d 534,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Third Judicial Department, denied.

Same case below, 68 App. Div. 3d 1534, 893 N.Y.S.2d 306.
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 Quarterly  report of GiveMePower  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
V.  Walton,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and 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.

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to  GiveMePower  Corporation  and will be retained by  GiveMePower
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

Date:  May 15, 2006                           By: /s/ WILLIAM V. WALTON
                                                  ----------------------
                                                  William V. Walton
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2



Section 1350 Certification,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 2, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter S. Teshima, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the
best of my knowledge, 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) 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 result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.



/S/    PETER S.
TESHIMAPeter S. Teshima Senior Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 10, 2006




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.
# C_2013141EN.01002202.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/22

---

Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Alpiq RomIndustries and Alpiq RomEnergie v Commission

(Case T-129/13)

2013/C 141/40

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Alpiq RomIndustries Srl (Bucharest, Romania) and Alpiq RomEnergie Srl (Bucharest) (represented by: H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision C(2012) 2542 final of 25 April 2012 (SA.33451; 2012/C; ex 2012/NN) pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, in so far as it concerns the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision C(2012) 2542 final of 25 April 2012 (SA.33451; 2012/C; ex 2012/NN) pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, in so far as it concerns the applicants;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants submit, in essence, that the Commission lacks competence. In the applicants’ view, the alleged aid does not fall within the scope ratione temporis of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU. Under Annex V to Romania’s Act of Accession, the Commission is competent to examine aid measures put into effect prior to the date of Romania’s accession only if those measures are still applicable after that date. The applicants submit in that context, inter alia, that Hidroelectrica’s liabilities vis-à-vis the alleged recipients were already established so clearly in the power supply contracts concluded prior to accession that a subsequent expansion of Hidroelectrica’s supply obligation that might have resulted in additional advantages had to be ruled out.

ratione temporis

---
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

R g"-o c ~;": c 3 2015 

HEAFW\lG DOCKET 

In The Matter Of: 

BEACH AVIATION, LLC 

Respondent. 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1325 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No. 2013S0950071 

JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING PLAN 

Pursuant to the Judge's September 3, 2015, Order, the parties hereby submit the 

following proposed scheduling/discovery plan: 

December 10,2015: Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference 

January 8, 2016: Deadline for Initial Disclosures 

January 11,2016: General Discovery Begins; parties may initiate written discovery; 

parties may issue Notices of Deposition 

February 5, 2016: Beginning of deposition period (expert or non-expert) 

February 26, 2016: Deadline for initial expert disclosures 

April 15, 2016: Deadline to issue deposition notices and/or request subpoenas for thirdparty depositions 

June 10, 2016: End of deposition period (expert or non-expert) 

June 24, 2016: Deadline to issue written discovery requests; deadline for supplemental 

expert witness reports 

July 29, 2016: Close of general discovery; all discovery responses due by this date; 

remaining discovery time available only to resolve disputes on existing discovery 

I 
August 26, 2016: Final Close of Discovery 

September 9, 2016: Dispositive Motion Deadline 

September 23, 2016: Deadline to Respond to Dispositive Motions 

September 30,2016: Deadline for Replies in Support of Dispositive Motions 

November 2016: Motion Conference on Dispositive Motions 

December 2016 or January 2017: Pre-Hearing Conference 

February 3, 2017: Deadline for exchange of witness lists and exhibits 

February 24, 2017: Deadline to file written stipulations and/or motions in limine 

Spring 2017: Hearing 

t-4 

Respectfully submitted this L day of December, 2015, 

~.a£~ Attorney 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Joint Proposed Scheduling Plan was sent: 

original and one copy via Federal Express to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

one copy via Federal Express and facsimile to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

one copy via Federal Express and email to: 

Charles Brady 

Beach Aviation, LLC, Respondent 

3700 Airport Road 

Suite 405 

Boca Raton, FL 33431 

chasbwi@gmail.com 

Program Analyst 

Dated 

3
# C_2013123EN.01002602.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/26

---

Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-149/13)

2013/C 123/46

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul notice of open competition EPSO/AST/126/12 — Assistants (AST 3), research sector, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul notice of open competition EPSO/AST/126/12 — Assistants (AST 3), research sector, and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-148/13 Kingdom of Spain v Commission.

Kingdom of Spain

Commission

---
# C_2015081EN.01001902.xml

| 9.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/19

---

Order of the General Court of 13 January 2015 — Vakoma v OHIM — VACOM (VAKOMA)

(Case T-535/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark VAKOMA - Earlier Community word mark VACOM - Application instituting proceedings - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2015/C 081/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vakoma GmbH (Magdeburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Kazzer, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: VACOM Vakuum Komponenten & Messtechnik GmbH (Jena, Germany)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 August 2013 (Case R 908/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between VACOM Vakuum Komponenten & Messtechnik GmbH and Vakoma GmbH.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

| 2. | Vakoma GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Vakoma GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

1

---
No. 10-5813.

#### Hung Ha, Petitioner v. William McGuiness.

562 U.S. 1106, 131 S. Ct. 848,

178 L. Ed. 2d 553,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9763.

December 13, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason B. Savery, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[769 NYS2d 442]

Appeal from a judgment of Oswego County Court (Hafner, Jr., J), entered January 3, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed *(see*Penal Law *1427§ 70.30 [1] [e] [ii] [B]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

In the Interest of David L., a Juvenile under the Age of Seventeen, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-198473

Appeal from Pickens County Alvin D. Johnson, Family Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2013-MO-013 Heard April 16, 2013 – Filed April 24, 2013

AFFIRMED

Ernest C. Grose, Jr., of Grose Law Firm, of Greenwood, and Chief Appellate Defende r Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General J. Benjamin Aplin, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: David L. pled guilty to criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree and was adjudicated guilty by the family court. The court

sentenced him to a determinate commitment in the Department of Juvenile Justice until his twenty-first birthday a nd also required that he regi ster as a sex offender as required by Section 23-3-430 of the South Carolina Code (2007). David appealsthe registration requirement arguing it violat es his rights to due process and equal protection and constitutes cruel and unusua l punishment. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. Due Process and Equal Protection: Tollett v. Henderson , 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973) ("When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offens e with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prio r to the entry of the guilty plea.");

State v. Rice , 401 S.C. 330, 330, 737 S.E. 2d 485, 485 (2013) ("[A] guilty plea constitutes a waiver of nonjuris dictional defects and claims of violations of constitutional rights.").

2. Cruel and Unusual Punishment: In re Ronnie A. , 355 S.C. 407, 409, 585 S.E.2d 311, 312 (2003) (noting the C ourt has held that sex offender registration, regardless of the length of time, is non-punitive). State v. Walls

, 348 S.C. 26, 31, 558 S.E.2d 524, 526 (2002) ("[T]he [South Carolina Sex Offender Registry] Act is not so punitive in purpose or effect as to constitute a criminal penalty.").

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE, HEAR N, JJ., and Acting Justice James

E. Moore, concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16176]



[[Page 33388]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[MT-960-1990-00]


Resource Advisory Council Meeting, Butte, MT

AGENCY: Butte Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, DOI.

ACTION: Notice of Butte Resource Advisory Council Meeting, Butte, 
Montana.

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

SUMMARY: The Council will convene at 9 AM, Friday, July 10, 1998. The 
main issue will be to prepare guidelines for BLM trails and roads.
    The meeting is open to the public and written comments may be given 
to the Council. Oral comments may be presented to the Council at 3 PM. 
The time allotted for oral comment may be limited, depending on the 
number of persons wishing to be heard. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need further information about the meeting, or need special 
assistance, such as sign language or other reasonable accommodations, 
should contact the Butte Field Office, 106 North Parkmont (PO Box 
3388), Butte, Montana 59702-3388, telephone 406-494-5059.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Merle Good at the above address or 
telephone number.

    Dated: June 8, 1998.
Merle Good,
Field Office Manager.
[FR Doc. 98-16176 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P