alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA Distribution honors National Disability Employment Awareness Month 2016 - #InclusionWorks

/ Published Oct. 25, 2016
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 

October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month, and all members of the DLA Distribution enterprise are encouraged to participate. The purpose of National Disability Employment Awareness Month is to educate about disability employment issues and celebrate the many and varied contributions of America's workers with disabilities.

Held annually, National Disability Employment Awareness Month is led by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy, but its true spirit lies in the many observances held at the grassroots level across the nation every year. Employers of all sizes and in all industries are encouraged to participate in NDEAM.

Reflecting the important role disability plays in workforce diversity, this year’s National Disability Employment Awareness Month theme is “#InclusionWorks.”

For ideas about how DLA Distribution can support National Disability Employment Awareness Month, visit www.dol.gov/ndeam. Everyone plays an important part in fostering a more inclusive workforce, one where every person is recognized for his or her abilities — every day of every month.
# DLA Aviation first sergeant promoted to top Marine Corps enlisted rank

/ Published Jan. 7, 2016

It was standing room only in the McKeever Auditorium Jan 5 as Defense Logistics Agency Aviation employees gathered in a ceremony honoring Marine Corps 1st Sgt. Phu Cao’s promotion to the rank of master gunnery sergeant. 

Cao began his Marine Corps service in 1994 as a recruit in Paris Island, South Carolina and is currently serving as the senior non-commissioned officer-in-charge for DLA Aviation’s Customer Operations Directorate’s Marine Aviation Cell of the Navy Customer Facing Division.

Cao has the distinction of being the first Marine promoted to the rank of master gunnery sergeant, the highest Marine Corps enlisted rank, while serving a joint assignment at DLA Aviation in Richmond, Virginia.

Cao said he didn’t accept the promotion and associated responsibilities lightly, but rather, he accepted after considering whether or not he was still up to the physical challenges demanded by the Corps.

“I appreciate the support and guidance of family members, fellow Marines and senior leaders as I made this decision.  I look forward to continuing to support DLA Aviation and our Marines,” said Cao. 

DLA Aviation Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Allan Day attended the ceremony, and shared a few thoughts with Cao and the audience.

Day commented on the Oath of Office Cao took during the ceremony.   

“It is the same oath we all take,” Day said as he congratulated Cao. “The oath is taken deeply. It is at our core, it is what we chose to do. I admire Cao’s decision to accept the promotion; even more so because the Marine Corps is a young bunch; they run hard and their leaders need to lead from the front.”

Day said as an E9, Master Gunnery Sgt. Cao is at the ‘top’ and part of an elite, exclusive group within the Marine Corps.

“Master Gunnery Sergeant Cao will be helping to set the vision and course for the Marine Corps. He will be guiding the Corps and through this joint assignment broadening the Corps’ knowledge and impact,” Day said.
<pre>

Exhibit 31.1

Certification Of The Chief Executive Officer Pursuant To Section
906 Of The Sarbanes - Oxley Act Of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Ludlum
Construction Co., Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that:

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10 Q-SB of the Company for
the period ended September 30, 2003, as amended, (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.


Dated: December 20, 2004         By: /s/ FLOYD D. WILKENSON
                                 ----------------------------
                                 Floyd D. Wilkenson
                                 Authorized Agent/Sole Director
                                 Appointed by Board of Directors
                                 on March 19, 2004


Certification Of The Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act Of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002 the undersigned officer of Ludlum
Construction Co., Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that:

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10 Q-SB of the Company for the
quarter ended September 30,  2003, as amended, (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented
in the Report.

Dated: December 20, 2004         By: /s/ FLOYD D. WILKENSON
                                 ----------------------------
                                 Floyd D. Wilkenson
                                 Authorized Agent/Sole Director
                                 Appointed by Board of Directors
                                 on March 19, 2004
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 8:22 AM

To: 'jon@jrupprechtlaw.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov' Subject: Request for Additional Information: Camera Copters, Inc. (FAA-2015-1100)



### June 11, 2015

Dear Mr. Rupprecht:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-1100). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, S ection 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operat ion please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by June 25, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Robert Mathews, certify to my knowledge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Viking Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Viking Systems, Inc.








Date: November 4, 2010
/s/ Robert MathewsRobert MathewsChief Financial Officer
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1016 CA 12-00233 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF GAMALIEL (TONY) DOMINGUEZ, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF PATRICK M. O’FLYNN, CAPTAIN ANDREW FORSYTHE, LIEUTENANT JOHN DIMARTINO AND DEPUTY PATRICIO ROJAS, JR., IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

WILLIAM K. TAYLOR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (BRIAN E. MARIANETTI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

JEFFREY WICKS, PLLC, ROCHESTER (JEFFREY WICKS OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered November 4, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The order, inter alia, vacated the termination of petitioner and ordered his reinstatement.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Matter of Laborers Intl. Union of N. Am., Local 210, AFL-CIO v Shevlin-Manning, Inc ., 147 AD2d 977).

Entered: October 5, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**EXHIBIT 21**

**List of Subsidiaries**

 

| **Name**                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |   | **Jurisdiction** |   | **%****Ownership** |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------|--------|--------------------|--------|
|  

 

 

Entertainment Technology Corporation

 

PA

 

100

%

ETL International Corporation
 
Barbados
 
100

%

ETC-PZL Aerospace Industries

 

Poland

 

95

%

ETC-Europe

 

Great Britain

 

99

%

ETC-Delaware

 

Delaware

 

100

%

NASTAR Center Holdings Corporation

 

Delaware

 

100

%

NASTAR Center LLC

 

Delaware

 

100

% |
#### *State, Respondent, v. Hibbard, Petitioner,*

No. 91701-9.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 31520-7-III, April 14, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1003. *Denied*September 30, 2015.
# C_2015406EN.01000901.xml

| 7.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2015 — Debonair Trading Internacional Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-270/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for Community word mark SÔ:UNIC - Earlier national and Community word marks SO...?, SO...? ONE, SO...? CHIC - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Family of marks))

(2015/C 406/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Debonair Trading Internacional Lda to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Debonair Trading Internacional Lda to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---
No. 10-748.

#### Steven D. Santhuff, et ux., Petitioners v. Steve Seitz.

562 U.S. 1180, 131 S. Ct. 1021,

178 L. Ed. 2d 830,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 906.

January 18, 2011.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 939.
# Schedule B11

&"Times New Roman,Bold"&12SPE4A6-15-R-0340		&"Times New Roman,Bold"&12Schedule B11
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
             THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
             EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
             FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
             IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
             STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                   21,801
<SECURITIES>                             11,519
<RECEIVABLES>                            39,853
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                               9,830
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         86,460
<PP&E>                                   53,562
<DEPRECIATION>                           39,598
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          126,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    45,742
<BONDS>                                  36,955
<COMMON>                                  8,454
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                  61
<OTHER-SE>                               29,536
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            126,753
<SALES>                                  96,060
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         96,060
<CGS>                                    69,940
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            86,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            171
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       (2,321)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           8,931
<INCOME-TAX>                                700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       7,168
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              7,168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.94
        

</TABLE>
3 0 c c E x t e r i o r M o u n t 5 0 c c I n t e r i o r m o u n t
# K2TIPV51402560

# K2TIPV51402563

# K2TIPV51402564

# K2TIPV51402565

# K2TIPV51402566

# K2TIPV51402568

# K2TIPV51402570

# K2TIPV51402573

# K2TIPV51402574

# K2TIPV51402575

# K2TIPV51402576

# K2TIPV51402577

# K2TIPV51402588

# K2TIPV51402590

# K2TIPV51402591

# K2TIPV51402598

# K2TIPV51402599

# K2TIPV51402600

# K2TIPV51402601

# K2TIPV51402603

# K2TIPV51402604

# K2TIPV51402608

# K2TIPV51402609

# K2TIPV51402610

# K2TIPV51402611

# K2TIPV51402612

# K2TIPV51402613

# K2TIPV51402616

# K2TIPV51402626

# K2TIPV51402627

# K2TIPV51402633

# K2TIPV51402634

# K2TIPV51402635

# K2TIPV51402636

# K2TIPV51402637

# K2TIPV51402638

# K2TIPV51402639

# K2TIPV51402640

# K2TIPV51472641

# K2TIPV51472642

# K2TIPV51472643

# K2TIPV51472644

# K2TIPV51472645

# K2TIPV51472646

# K2TIPV51472647

# K2TIPV51472648

# K2TIPV51472649

# K2TIPV51472651

# K2TIPV51472652

# K2TIPV51472653
# REV A

# Baseline
#### In the Matter of Liling Gao, Respondent, v Ming Min Fan, Appellant.

[48 NYS3d 771]

Appeal by the father from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Marybeth S. Richroath, J.), dated May 24, 2016. The order denied the father’s objections to an order of that court (Michael J. Fondacaro, S.M.) dated April 6, 2016, which, after a hearing, directed him to pay child support in the sum of $888 per month.

Ordered that the order dated May 24, 2016, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The parties have one child together. In December 2014, the mother filed a petition for child support. Following a hearing, the Support Magistrate imputed an annual income of $70,000 to the father for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation. In an order dated April 6, 2016, the Support Magistrate directed the father to pay child support in the sum of $888 per month based upon the imputed income. In the order *898appealed from, dated May 24, 2016, the Family Court denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order. The father appeals, and we affirm.

“When determining a parent’s child support obligation, ‘[a] court need not rely upon a party’s own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the party’s past income or demonstrated future potential earnings’ ” *(Matter of Abruzzo v Jackson,*137 AD3d 1017, 1018 [2016], quoting *Matter of Rohme v Burns,*92 AD3d 946, 947 [2012]; *see Curran v Curran,*2 AD3d 391, 392 [2003]). “A support magistrate is afforded considerable discretion in determining whether to impute income to a parent, and we accord deference to a support magistrate’s credibility determinations” *(Matter of Napoli v Roller,*140 AD3d 1070, 1071 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

Here, the Support Magistrate properly imputed income to the father based upon his prior employment income and rental income. The record supports the Support Magistrate’s determination that the father reduced his income in order to reduce his child support obligation, and that an annual income of $70,000 should be imputed to him *(see*Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [iv], [v]; *Matter of Abruzzo v Jackson,*137 AD3d at 1018; *Curran v Curran,*2 AD3d at 392).

Hall, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Connolly, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 11.1
                         ESPEY MFG. & ELECTRONICS CORP.
                      Computation of per Share Earnings as
                        Disclosed in Item 14 of Form 10-K


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                         Five years ended June 30, 2002

                                           2003            2002            2001             2000           1999
                                         -------         -------         -------          --------        -------

<S>                                       <C>             <C>            <C>             <C>              <C>
Computation of earnings
     per share:

         BASIC
         Weighted average
         number of primary
         shares outstanding .....         1,025,200       1,030,556      1,031,403       1,045,520        1,100,065
                                         ==========      ==========     ==========      ==========       ==========

Net income.......................        $  964,700      $  545,754     $1,033,069      $  782,943       $  730,601
                                         ==========      ==========     ==========      ==========       ==========

Per share-basic.................         $      .94      $      .53     $     1.00      $      .75       $     .66
                                         ==========      ==========     ==========      ==========       ==========
         DILUTED
         Weighted average
         number of primary
         shares outstanding .....         1,027,686       1,034,904      1,033,989       1,045,235        1,100,065
                                         ==========      ==========     ==========      ==========       ==========

         Net effect of
         dilutive stock
         options based on
         treasury stock
         method..................             2,486           4,348          2,586             285              --
                                         ==========      ==========     ==========      ==========       ==========

Net income.......................        $  964,700      $  545,754     $1,033,069      $  782,943       $  730,601
                                         ==========      ==========     ==========      ==========       ==========

Per share-diluted................        $      .94      $      .53     $     1.00      $      .75       $      .66
                                         ==========      ==========     ==========      ==========       ==========
</TABLE>
----

**EXHIBIT        32.2**

**CERTIFICATION        BY CFO PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 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/                  Charles J. Pullin                                                             |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Vice                  President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and                  Secretary |   |
|   |                                                                                               |   |
|   | April                  9, 2007                                                                     |   |

----
#### In the Matter of Raglan George, Jr., et al., Appellants, v Michael Bloomberg, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 535]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lottie Wilkins, J), entered May 16, 2003, which, in a CELR article 78 proceeding brought by labor unions representing employees of day care centers funded by respondent City of New York, seeking to enjoin the City from supplanting, rather than supplementing, its tax levy and other monies earmarked for child care services with federal Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) monies, in violation of various federal and state statutes and regulations pertaining to CCDBG monies, including 18 NYCRR 415.11 (d) (5), granted the City’s motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of capacity to sue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court dismissed the petition on the ground that the CCDBG Act (42 USC § 9858*et seq.)*cannot be enforced through a private right of action. On appeal, petitioners argue that for purposes of the mandamus relief they seek, it is not necessary for them to show an express or implied private right of action under the Act, only that they were harmed by the alleged diversion of earmarked monies in violation of the Act and are in the zone of interests to be protected (citing *Hernandez-Avalos v Immigration & Naturalization Serv.,*50 F3d 842, 846 [10th Cir 1995], and *Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley,*38 NY2d 6 [1975]). We reject that argument. *Hernandez-Avalos*is in conflict with *Gonzaga Univ. v Doe*(536 US 273, 283 [2002]), which “reject[s] the notion that our cases permit anything short of an unambiguously conferred right to support a cause of action brought under [42 USC] § 1983” to enforce a federal funding statute, and in *Dairylea*there was no clear legislative intent to negate a private right of action (38 NY2d at 11). Here, Congress clearly manifested its intent to negate a private right of action by creating an enforcement scheme that involves only federal *295administrative action (42 USC § 9858g [b] [2]). We are not persuaded otherwise by Social Services Law § 410-bb manifesting legislative concern for the low salaries of day care workers *(see Mark G. v*Sabol, 93 NY2d 710, 720-721 [1999]). We have considered and rejected petitioners’ remaining claims. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.