alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Training helps ensure troops receive quality clothing items

/ Published Aug. 22, 2016
PHILADELPHIA, 
Ensuring America’s warfighters have the best quality products starts with training those who inspect the items from vendors, a Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Clothing and Textiles supervisor said.

Approximately 20 quality assurance representatives from the Defense Contract Management Agency visited DLA Philadelphia Aug. 5 as part of a required two-week training, C&T Technical Support Branch supervisor Elizabeth Roland said.

The training is coordinated by DLA’s training office, DCMA and Philadelphia University, the nation’s first textiles college.

“We partner with Philadelphia University because they have the expertise,” Roland said. “They can really present a full range of technical topics about how cloth is made, [how] fibers are formed and that sort of thing.”

The training provides QARs with an overview of C&T procured items, the U.S. clothing and textiles industry, and the supply chain. This helps QARs understand what to look for during inspections as they accept or reject items based on customer requirements.

Nine days of the 10-day course are spent at Philadelphia University. The last day includes a visit to C&T and DLA Land and Maritime’s Product Testing Center. While visiting DLA, C&T technical supervisors and product specialists meet the QARs to establish a personal connection, as they work together often, Roland said. 

“One of the things that I stress as I’m teaching my portion of the class is how critical it is for our product specialists and the QARs to talk to each other,” Roland said. “It’s important for the QARs to get this overview of the industry, the [products] and the people who work here, so that we can really communicate and make the best possible decisions for both our customers and also our vendors.”

Product specialists help QARs determine what materials are usable by sharing their understanding of items’ functionality, customers’ needs and the industrial base Roland said. 

DCMA quality assurance specialist David Merrill, from Seattle, Washington, said he was amazed at how much was involved in producing clothing items.

"I didn't realize how technical it was,” Merrill said. “It's [also] value added because the taxpayers are paying for this stuff, so we want to make sure that the product we're buying actually does what it's supposed to do out in the field for these military individuals."

There have been four training sessions this summer, with approximately 100 students participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          270851
<SECURITIES>                                    200000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    74698
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    3096886
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4685371
<PP&E>                                         6155928
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2168963
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9796636
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1481904
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        825649
<OTHER-SE>                                     3792303
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9796636
<SALES>                                        3193098
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3193098
<CGS>                                          2570577
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3195359
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (3227)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               25795
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (24829)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (6575)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (18254)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-5723.

#### Ronald N. Totaro, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 935, 131 S. Ct. 339,

178 L. Ed. 2d 220,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7261.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Syphilis is an infection mothers 

can pass to their unborn 

babies. It can make babies 

very sick, cause them to have 

ongoing health issues, and in 

some cases can lead to death. 

Get Tested 

for Syphilis

Syphilis can be cured 

with the right medicine. 

It’s best to get tested 

for syphilis 3 times

during your pregnancy.

If it is not treated, 

syphilis can pass from 

mother to baby. 

This is called 

congenital syphilis.

Syphilis_Prenatal_Screening_2023_1128.indd 1 11/27/2023 2:25:45 PM
Get Tested

as Soon as Possible

You may not know you have syphilis. 

Anyone who has sex can get syphilis. Many people with 

syphilis do not have any symptoms. The only way to 

know is to get tested.

1. At your first doctor’s visit or as soon 

as possible during pregnancy 

• Even if you’ve been tested for syphilis in 

the past, you should be tested when you 

become pregnant.

• If you have syphilis, your sex partners 

need to be tested and treated too, or 

you might get it again.

2. During your third trimester 

(or 3 months before your due date) 

• It is possible to get syphilis later in 

pregnancy or again, so you should 

get tested a second time when you’re 

around 28 weeks pregnant.

3. At the hospital when you have 

your baby

• It is possible to get syphilis later in 

pregnancy or again, so testing at 

delivery is very important.

You should get tested 3 times during 

your pregnancy:

1

2

3

Syphilis_Prenatal_Screening_2023_1128.indd 2 11/27/2023 2:25:51 PM
Without medicine, 

congenital syphilis can cause:

• A baby to be born early 

or small 

• A baby to have lifelong 

health problems

• Miscarriage, stillbirth, 

or newborn death

Quick Treatment

Can Protect Your Baby

If you have syphilis, you need to be treated 

right away.

To make sure 

your baby 

does not get 

syphilis, it is 

important 

to get your 

medicine 

as soon as 

possible. 

The 

consequence 

of untreated 

congenital 

syphilis is 

too high.

Let your doctor or nurse know if you can’t 

get your medicine for any reason. They will 

work to get you the medicine you need to 

stay healthy and protect your baby.

If you miss appointments, your medicine 

might not work as well. 

Sometimes, medicine can be given one time 

right when you find out you have syphilis.

Sometimes, you may have to go to a different 

doctor to get your medicine or come back 

for more doses.

Syphilis_Prenatal_Screening_2023_1128.indd 3 11/27/2023 2:25:56 PM
Get tested for 

syphilis today.

If you’re pregnant, get tested 

for syphilis as soon as possible.

Visit https://gettested.cdc.gov/ 

or contact your 

local health department:

Syphilis_Prenatal_Screening_2023_1128.indd 4 11/27/2023 2:25:59 PM
No. 10-5265.

#### Charles C. Graham, Petitioner v. Missouri.

562 U.S. 1088, 131 S. Ct. 696,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9392.

178 L. Ed. 2d 525,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 912, 131 S. Ct. 268, 178 L. Ed. 2d 176, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6907.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17448]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 985]


Designation of New Grantee for Foreign-Trade Zone 85, Everett, 
Washington; Resolution and Order

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the Foreign-Trade Zones 
Board Regulations (15 CFR Part 400), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the 
Board) adopts the following Order:

    After consideration of the request with supporting documents 
(Docket 48-96) from the Puget Sound Foreign-Trade Zones Association, 
grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 85, Everett, Washington, for 
reissuance of the grant of authority for said zone to the Port of 
Everett, a State of Washington municipal corporation, which has 
accepted such reissuance subject to approval of the FTZ Board, the 
Board, finding that the requirements of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act 
and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is 
in the public interest, approves the request and recognizes the Port 
of Everett as the new grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 85.
    The approval is subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's 
regulations, including Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of June 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

    Attest:
Dennis Puccinelli,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17448 Filed 6-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
No. 09-11376.

#### Donald Ray Guidry, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1108, 131 S. Ct. 818,

178 L. Ed. 2d 555,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9824.

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 611.
#### Frank J. Vetro, Appellant, v Hampton Bays Union Free School District et al., Respondents.

[50 NYS3d 102]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful termination of employment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated July 14, 2014, which denied his motion for summary judgment on *964the complaint and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to the election of remedies doctrine, the filing of a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the Division) precludes the commencement of an action in the Supreme Court asserting the same discriminatory acts *(see*Executive Law § 297 [9]; *Wrenn v Verizon,*106 AD3d 995, 995-996 [2013]; *Ehrlich v Kantor,*213 AD2d 447 [1995]; *Craig-Oriol v Mount Sinai Hosp.,*201 AD2d 449, 450 [1994]). However, Executive Law § 297 (9) provides that, “ ‘where the [Division has dismissed such complaint on the grounds of administrative convenience [,] . . . such person shall maintain all rights to bring suit as if no complaint had been filed with the [Division’ ” *(Wrenn v Verizon,*106 AD3d at 996, quoting Executive Law § 297 [9]; *see Matter of James v Coughlin,*124 AD2d 728, 729-730 [1986]).

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint. They adduced evidence that the complaint in this action is based on the same allegedly discriminatory conduct asserted in complaints the plaintiff filed with the Division *(see*Executive Law § 297 [9]; *Matter of Nizamuddeen v New York City Tr. Auth.,*140 AD3d 880 [2016]; *Matter of James v Coughlin,*124 AD2d at 729-730; *see also Wrenn v Verizon,*106 AD3d at 995-996; *Ehrlich v Kantor,*213 AD2d at 447; *Craig-Oriol v Mount Sinai Hosp.,*201 AD2d at 450), and that the Division dismissed those complaints on the merits and not for mere administrative convenience (see *Wrenn v Verizon,*106 AD3d at 996). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that this action is barred by the election of remedies doctrine.

In light of our determination, the plaintiff’s remaining contentions have been rendered academic.

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
PLANIFIQUE. PROPORCIONE. ENTRENE.

¡Únase a la campaña para acabar 

con las caídas en la construcción!

www.stopconstructionfalls.com

 

PLANIFIQUE. PROPORCIONE. ADIESTRE . 

Tres pasos sencillos para prevenir caídas. 

CPWR [e THE CENTER POR CONSTRUCTION 

RESEARCH AND TRAINING 

LA CONSTRUCCIÓN TIENE EL NIVEL MÁS ALTO DE CAÍDAS MORTALES 

LA CONSTRUCCIÓN 

es la industria con 

más caídas mortales 

representando 

má

1⁄2 

s de 

51% de todas 

las caídas 

relacionadas 

con el trabajo a 

En el 2017, las caídas nivel nacional 

mortales representaron 

366 del total de 971

muertes que ocurrieron 

en la construcción 

Las pequeñas

empresas de 

construcción 

con 10 o menos ( empleados 

representan 

61% 

de todas las 

caídas mortales 

(

Source 1: Socias-Morales CM, Chaumont Menéndez CK, Marsh SM. Fatal work-related falls in the United States, 2003-2014. Am J Ind Med. 2018;61:204–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22810 

Source 2: The Construction Chart Book 6th Edition, Chart 44d. https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/publications/The_6th_Edition_Construction_eChart_Book.pdf 

Source 3: BLS: 2017 Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, https://data.bls.gov/gqt/RequestData
No. 10-6721.

#### Toby Martinez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1019, 131 S. Ct. 543,

178 L. Ed. 2d 399,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8457.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 610 F.3d 1216.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AT MARCH 31, 1999 (AUDITED) AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 (AUDITED)
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           8,066
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,361
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (300)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,909
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,485
<PP&E>                                          16,549
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,926
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,612
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,566
<SALES>                                         15,850
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,850
<CGS>                                            7,709
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,154
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,255
<INCOME-TAX>                                       128
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,127
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,127
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35605-35606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17356]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary


Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory Group; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary is 
announcing a public meeting of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public 
Advisory Group.

DATES: July 28, 1998, at 8:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Fourth floor conference room, 645 ``G'' Street, Anchorage, 
Alaska.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Mutter, Department of the 
Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, 1689 ``C'' 
Street, Suite 119, Anchorage, Alaska, (907) 271-5011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Public Advisory Group was created by 
Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of

[[Page 35606]]

Agreement and Consent Decree entered into by the United States of 
America and the State of Alaska on August 27, 1991, and approved by the 
United States District Court for the District of Alaska in settlement 
of United States of America v. State of Alaska, Civil Action No. A91-
081 CV. The agenda will include a discussion of the fiscal year 1999 
Work Plan and a discussion of the restoration reserve fund. A public 
meeting on the Work Plan will be held Monday, July 27 at 7:00 p.m. at 
the same location.

    Dated: June 24, 1998.
Willie R. Taylor,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 98-17356 Filed 6-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-RG-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6320

JOSEPH FREDERICK MOORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus H. R. POWELL, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-97-595-3) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Joseph Frederick Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), as untimely filed. Appellant’s conviction became final before April 24, 1996, the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. On August 5, 1997, Appellant file d a § 2254 petition. The district court denied relief because Appellant filed his petition outside the one-year limitation period imposed by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). See Brown v. Angelone , ___ F.3d ___, Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998) (holding that petitioner had until April 23, 1997, in which to file a timely petition). BecauseAppellant filed his § 2254 petition after April 23, 1997, and because his second state post-conviction petition did not toll the limitation period, we find that the petition was untimely filed. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1), (2). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Appellant’s motion to expedite the appeal as moot, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Kraft Foods, Inc., Respondent, v R & L Perry Construction, Inc., Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 518]

— Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Steuben County (Bradstreet, J.), entered December 12, 2002, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for costs and attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting an underlying action and this action and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying that part of plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for costs and attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting this action and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this breach of contract action seeking to recover costs and attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting an underlying Labor Law action, as well as costs and attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting this action. The complaint alleges the breach of an indemnity agreement that not only obligates defendant to indemnify and hold plaintiff harmless from any liability under the Labor Law, but also provides that, “[i]n the event that [defendant] shall fail or refuse to defend any such claim or action, [defendant] shall be liable to [plaintiff] for all costs of [plaintiff] in defending such claim or action and all costs of [plaintiff] including attorney[’s] fees [incurred] in recovering such defense costs from [defendant].” Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for costs and attorney’s fees in both the underlying Labor Law action and this action, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint.

Supreme Court properly granted that part of plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on defendant’s liability for costs and attorney’s fees in the underlying Labor Law action. The court erred, however, in granting that part of plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on defendant’s liability for costs and attorney’s fees incurred in seeking recovery from defendant in this action. Defendant has raised issues of fact concerning plaintiff’s performance under the contract, i.e., whether plaintiff properly tendered its defense and whether defendant failed or refused to defend plaintiff in the underlying action, thereby breaching the agreement.

*1481We therefore modify the order by denying that part of plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for costs and attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting this action. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner and Kehoe, JJ.
No. 09-10959.

#### Rodney Dutch, Petitioner v. Karen Balicki, Administrator, South Woods State Prison, et al.

562 U.S. 1087, 131 S. Ct. 690,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9057.

178 L. Ed. 2d 520,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 857, 131 S. Ct. 124, 178 L. Ed. 2d 76, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6064.