alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Distribution Oklahoma City’s Employee of the Quarter

/ Published April 18, 2016
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, 
Carolyn Coker, supervisory material examiner and identifier at DLA Distribution Oklahoma City, Okla., has been selected as the Employee of the Quarter for the first quarter of fiscal year 2016.

According to Oklahoma City director, Ned LaViolette, Coker’s leadership, performance and work ethic are absolutely outstanding as validated by exceeding all eight DLA receiving standards throughout the quarter.

As the central receiving branch chief, Coker is responsible for a more than 165,000 square foot warehouse with over 600 jet aircraft engines valued at $12 billion.  She is also assigned a receiving function with over 100,000 square feet and over 30 employees with a payroll well in excess of $1 million.

Coker was also appointed as the lead of the DLA Distribution Oklahoma City, Okla.,  four-hour delivery response time Integrated Process Team to improve delivery times.  She worked diligently towards process improvement by dedicating a small number of full time employees to specific areas of focus, which resulted in a 40 percent improvement in the four-hour delivery rate.  

Coker supervised the movement of over 120 U.S. Air Force jet engines and earned over $720,000 in revenue for DLA for the storage and management of these assets.

“Carolyn’s excellent management of assets is reflected in the fact that the U.S. Air Force is knocking on our door and now wants DLA Distribution Oklahoma City, Okla., to store and manager their entire fleet of engine trailers,” said LaViolette.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Section 1350 Certification of**

**the Chief Financial Officer**

I, Michael Smith, the chief financial officer of Cobra Electronics Corporation, certify that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cobra ElectronicsCorporation for the annual period ended December 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cobra Electronics Corporation and its subsidiaries.
No. 10-6426.

#### Israel Reyna, Petitioner v. Kansas.

562 U.S. 1014, 131 S. Ct. 532,

178 L. Ed. 2d 391,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8642.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas denied.

Same case below, 290 Kan. 666, 234 P.3d 761.
No. 10-6125.

#### Timothy Thomas Eubanks, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 518,

178 L. Ed. 2d 382,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8563,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35940-35941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17458]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[WY-985-0777-66]


Notice of Intent To Conduct a Planning Review, Concerning Off 
Road Vehicle Use in the Weston Hills Area, North of Gillette, Wyoming, 
and Request for Public Participation

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Buffalo Resource Area, 
invites the public to identify issues and concerns to be addressed in a 
review of vehicular use management decisions for BLM administered 
public lands in the Weston Hills Area.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Interested parties may obtain further 
information, or request to be placed on the Buffalo mailing list by 
contacting Neil Schiche, Project Coordinator, at the Buffalo Resource 
Area Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1425 Fort Street, Buffalo, 
Wyoming 82834, 307-684-1100.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A planning review of the Weston Hills area 
is needed to evaluate existing BLM off road vehicle use and vehicular 
use management decisions for the BLM administered public lands in the 
area. The purposes of the planning review are to determine: (1) Whether 
the existing vehicular use management decisions for the BLM 
administered public lands in the Weston Hills area provide for an 
appropriate level of resource protection, (2) whether other management 
actions and alternatives that may be considered would be in conformance 
with existing decisions in the Buffalo Resource Management Plan (RMP), 
and (3) whether or not it will be necessary to amend the Buffalo RMP.
    The National Environmental Policy Act environmental analysis and 
documentation process will be used in conducting the planning review 
and in making the above determinations for the planning review area. An 
Environmental Assessment will be

[[Page 35941]]

prepared to document the review and its results.
    The planning review will include opportunities for public 
participation. The public will be invited to a meeting(s) to discuss: 
(1) problems, conflicts, concerns, and planning issues in the review 
area, and (2) potential management options to consider. A public 
meeting is scheduled for June 30, 1998, at 7 p.m., in the Campbell 
County Public Library, 2101 4J Road, Gillette, Wyoming.
    If other public meetings, open houses or similar events are needed, 
they will be announced through other notices, mailings, or news 
releases. The planning review results, and any need to amend the 
Buffalo RMP and to provide a protest period on the amendment will be 
announced in the same manner.

    Dated: June 25, 1998.
Alan L. Kesterke,
Associate State Director.
[FR Doc. 98-17458 Filed 6-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
No. 10-6528.

#### Ronnie Donnie Gant, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 990, 131 S. Ct. 436,

178 L. Ed. 2d 338,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8182.

October 18, 2010.

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



Exhibit 24.3

POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned director of both EaglePicher Holdings, Inc. and EaglePicher
Industries, Inc. hereby consents to and appoints John H. Weber, Thomas R.
Pilholski and David G. Krall, and each of them, as his true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact and agents with all power of substitution, for him and in his
name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the 2003 fiscal year of both EaglePicher Holdings, Inc. and
EaglePicher Industries, Inc., corporations organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware and the State of Ohio respectively, and any and
all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and
all documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power
and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the same as fully to all intents and purposes
as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that
said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or either of them, or their or his
substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
thereof.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has hereunto set his hand on this 12th day
of February, 2004.

|                             |  | 
|---------------------------- |  | 
|/S/ BERT IEDEMA

Bert Iedema |  | 
|Director                     |  | 

106
# TB Outbreak Communication Needs Assessment

**(*Checklist***

# Planning, Research, Training, and Evaluation

# Messages and Audiences

# Messenger

# Delivery Methods and Resources

# Personnel

# Resources
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

The following certification accompanies the issuer’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and is not filed as provided in SEC Release Nos. 33-8212, 34-47551 and IC-25967, dated March 21, 2003. 

 

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 on Form 10-K of Dynamics Research Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: 

 

(1)  the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and 

 

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

 

By:  /s/  James P. Regan

James P. Regan 

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer 

March 31, 2003 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Dynamics Research Corporation and will be retained by DynamicsResearch Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES
              COMMITTEE OF SAPPI LIMITED (REG NO 1936/008963/06)
                          ON FRIDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2004

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

AMENDMENTS TO THE SAPPI LIMITED SHARE INCENTIVE SCHEME
("THE SCHEME")


1. VARIATION OF VESTING PERIODS
   ----------------------------

   RESOLVED THAT :

   the vesting periods for scheme shares, share options and allocation shares
   granted to participants on or after 4 November 2004 shall be 25% per year
   commencing on the first anniversary after the acceptance date, instead of
   20% per year commencing on the first anniversary after the acceptance date
   as applicable to grants made prior to 4 November 2004.


/s/ E Van As
----------------------              )
E VAN AS                            )
                                    )
                                    )
                                    )
/s/ D C Brink                       )
----------------------              )       COMMITTEE MEMBERS
D C BRINK                           )
                                    )
                                    )
                                    )
/s/ M Feldberg                      )
----------------------              )
M FELDBERG                          )


2. BOARD DISCRETION
   ----------------

   RESOLVED THAT :

   the rules of the Scheme be amended to allow the board discretion to treat
   scheme participants under the option method more favourably on termination
   of their employment, than the rules provide.

/s/ E Van As
----------------------              )
E VAN AS                            )
                                    )
                                    )
                                    )
/s/ D C Brink                       )
----------------------              )       COMMITTEE MEMBERS
D C BRINK                           )
                                    )
                                    )
                                    )
/s/ M Feldberg                      )
----------------------              )
M FELDBERG                          )


                                     - 2 -

<PAGE>



3. ACCEPTANCE OF OFFERS
   --------------------

   RESOLVED THAT :

   the rules of the scheme be amended so as to enable the board to waive the
   30 day acceptance period in respect of offers to participants under the
   option method of the Scheme.


/s/ E Van As
----------------------              )
E VAN AS                            )
                                    )
                                    )
                                    )
/s/ D C Brink                       )
----------------------              )       COMMITTEE MEMBERS
D C BRINK                           )
                                    )
                                    )
                                    )
/s/ M Feldberg                      )
----------------------              )
M FELDBERG                          )
No. 10-7298.

#### Haleodora Zepeta, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1077, 131 S. Ct. 682,

178 L. Ed. 2d 507,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9280.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 389 Fed. Appx. 907.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Edwards, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 602]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered June 3, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve communications between defendant and counsel that are not reflected in the record *(see People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 998 [1982]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards in connection with his plea *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

Defendant’s challenges to the validity of his plea do not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement *(see People v Conceicao,*26 NY3d 375, 382 [2015]), and we *505decline to review these unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the record as a whole establishes that the plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. Defendant’s challenges to the form, sequence and content of the plea colloquy are without merit *(see e.g. People v Rivera,*118 AD3d 626 [1st Dept 2014], *lv denied*24 NY3d 964 [2014]).

Defendant’s argument concerning his adjudication as a second violent felony offender is likewise unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
# C_2014409EN.01004301.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/43

---

Order of the General Court of 18 September 2014 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-699/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Application at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible - Application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Action lodged out of time - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))

2014/C 409/62

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 in Case F-145/12 Marcuccio v Commission ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:162, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

| 3. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to refund to the General Court the sum of EUR 2  000 pursuant to Article 90 of its Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to refund to the General Court the sum of EUR 2  000 pursuant to Article 90 of its Rules of Procedure.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

1

---
No. 10-5977.

#### George I. Stapley, Petitioner v. The Mississippi Bar, et al.

562 U.S. 985, 131 S. Ct. 421,

178 L. Ed. 2d 328,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8317,

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Mississippi denied.
No. 10-6679.

#### Mohammed Ghali, Petitioner v. Keith Roy, Warden.

562 U.S. 1018, 131 S. Ct. 540,

178 L. Ed. 2d 397,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8361.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 462.
# C_2015081EN.01001901.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 14 January 2015 — SolarWorld and Others v Commission

(Case T-507/13) (1)

1

((Actions for annulment - Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China - Acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding - Community industry - Absence of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 081/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany); Brandoni solare SpA (Castelfidardo, Italy); Global Sun Ltd (Sliema, Malta); Silicio Solar, SAU (Madrid, Spain); Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (Puertollano, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for the annulment of Commission Decision 2013/423/EU of 2 August 2013 accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 209, p. 26), and of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU of 4 December 2013 confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 214).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | SolarWorld AG, Brandoni solare SpA, Global Sun Ltd, Silicio Solar, SAU and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

SolarWorld AG, Brandoni solare SpA, Global Sun Ltd, Silicio Solar, SAU and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

1

---
No. 10-375.

#### Bernice Perez, Petitioner v. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association.

562 U.S. 1063, 131 S. Ct. 648,

178 L. Ed. 2d 480,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9358.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 70 App. Div. 3d 817, 894 N.Y.S.2d 509.
2017-0372.

#### Hillman v. O’Shaughnessy.

Franklin App. No. 16AP-571, 2017-Ohio-489.
ROLAND S. MAINOR

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ 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 FIL ED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 4408

Opinion filed November 3, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Roland S. Mainor, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

PADOVA NO, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ.

, CONCUR.
#### Bradley Grossman, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[67 NYS3d 459]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered September 26, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record demonstrates as a matter of law that defendants did not have constructive notice of the alleged water damage that caused the sudden collapse of the table on which plaintiff sat *(see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836 [1986]; *Soto v New Frontiers 2 Hope Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.,*118 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2014]; *Lance v Den-Lyn Realty Corp.,*84 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiff’s own testimony showed that the alleged water damage was neither visible nor apparent before the table collapsed and therefore that a reasonable inspection would not have revealed that the table would be unable to support plaintiff’s weight.

Concur— Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Kapnick, Kahn, Kern, JJ.