alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON DC 20201.5000

94 FEB 1805

MEMORANDUM FOR ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
CNSTALLATIONS, LOGISTICS AND ENVIRONMENT)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (RESEARCH,

DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION)
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

(ACQUISITION)
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, DIRECTOR FOR

LOGISTICS (34)
DIRECTOR, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
SYSTEMS CENTER

DIRECTOR, JOINT LOGISTICS

SUBJECT: Configuration Control for Changes to DLSS and DLMS

The Defense Logistics Standard Systems (LSS) ani
isting military and

Management Systems @LMS) are, respectively,
pending ANSI ASC %.12 transaction sets and proce
logistics information, including some information movin

finance, and procurement. The DLSS and DLMS standards are documented
under authority of DoD 4140.1 and DoD 4140.1-R, Materiel Management.

In order to ensure coordination and to maintain overall integrity of the
logistics system, no changes to DLSS MoD 4000,28-(1-13)M) or DLMS
(4000.25-M) policies, processes, procedures,

transaction sets, or
implementation conventions, whether wholesale or retail, will occur without

DLMSO configuration control review and final approval by OSD.
ponents should forward

For disposition of proposed changes, Co
changes affect tho DLSS or

changes directly to DLMSO ift a) the proposed
n sets, or implementation

DLMS, processes, procedures, transactio!
conventions, whether wholesale or yetail; or b) the proposed changes
tem; or c) the initiator cannot identify

primarily affect a retail process or Sy5'
m. Components should forward proposed

the affected process or syste!
changes directly to the CIM center if the proposed changes clearly affect that
CIMs business area process or system, and clearly do not affect the DLSS or

DLMS.

& A


For process changes that onginate within the CIM center, proposed
changes should be xeforred to DLMSO for parallel review through existing
coordinating processes. Proposals modify DLSS or DLMS policies,
processes, procedures, transaction gate or implementation conventions in
support of “data sharing” initiatives will be coordinated with DLMSO to
ensure external impacts are addressed (e.g. retail systems, procurement, and

finance).

Copy to:
Vieo Commander, US TRANSCOM
Director, Defense Logistics Management Standards Office

Ady

i
HL Pot. dus **

ae td
**DoD 4000.25-2-M**

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, August 03, 2023*

*Change 16*

**AP2.8. APPENDIX 2.8**

**REJECT ADVICE CODES**

AP2.8.1.  All A B, D and H series reject advice codes not listed in this appendix are reserved for future use and are not to be used unless authorized and disseminated by the DoD MILSTRAP Administrator. All other series are reserved for intra-Component use.

## 

**AP2.8-**

AP2.8-1

APPENDIX 2.8
No. 10-10316.

#### Michael Melendez, Petitioner v. Mitchell, et al.

565 U.S. 833, 132 S. Ct. 135,

181 L. Ed. 2d 55,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5672.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 394 Fed. Appx. 739.
From: Howard L. Gilberg [ mailto:Gilberg@guidaslavichflores.com ]

Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 12:53 PM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Cc: Barnett, Keith; Fruh, Steve; Tsirigotis, Peter; Telander , Jeff; Connie O'Neal; Eric

Astrachan; Robert Hurt; Steve Wiederwax; Steve Willis

Subject: Challenge to the Inclusion of Stonepeak Plant 2005 Results in MACT Database and MACT

Floor for the Ceramic Tile Industry

Sharon:

The TCNA submits the attached repo rt technically challenging the inclusion of Stonepeak 2005

stack testing results in the MACT database for the ceramic tile industry and in particular, in the

MACT Floor.

As Mr. Telander is aware, TCNA asserted this challenge previously based on the versi on of this

report submitted to EPA by Stonepeak and provided to us. In response to our first challenge,

EPA sought and received a second version of the Stonepeak report and verbally dismissed our

first challenge as no longer applicable.

Mike Hartman, the author of the attached report, is an expert recognized by EPA and industry

alike in measurement of acid stack gases. EPA has previously accepted his reports in the context

of its development of the MACT standard for the tile industry, and we see no reason EPA should

not accept his current technical report challenging the Stonepeak 2005 stack testing results.

We look forward to EPA’s review of the attached report and affirmative response to it.

In the meantime, can you provided an update on where your of fice stands with respect to the

proposed subcategorization of wall tile production?

Thank you.

Howard

Howard L. Gilberg

Guida, Slavich & Flores, P.C.

750 North St. Paul Street, Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75201

214.692

- 0009

- phone

214.692

- 6610

- fax

gilberg@gsfpc.com

www.theenvironmentallawfirm.com
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
SHERMAN TERRILL PRUITT , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 17

- 0 088 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 19 95

- 002635 The Honorable Sherry K. Stephens , Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

Sherman Terrill Pruitt , Buckeye Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 11-28-2017STATE v. PRUITT Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Sherman Terrill Pruitt seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's sixth successive petition

. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this cour t will not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- c onviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court's order denying the petition for post

- conviction r elief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
# OPEN_BOS_DETAIL_TAB

# AFIPV_POS

# AFIPV_Open_PRs
MATTER OF G— 

In EXCLUSION Proceedings 

A-8250353 

Decided by Board January 21, 1959 

Waivers of excludability—Section 211(b), Immigration and Nationality Act, may 

be exercised in conjunction with sections 5 and 7 of the Act of September 11, 

1957. 

Waiver of visa requirement under section 211(b) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act may be granted concurrently with waivers under sections 5 

and S of the Act of September 11, 1957, to authorize admission of returning 

resident alien. 

KNCLUDABLE : Act of 1952—Section 212(a) (9)—Convicted of crime involving 

moral turpitude. to wit : Forzery in violation of section 207. German Criminal Code, 

• 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

Discussion: This case comes before us by certification. The 

applicant, a 39-year-old married male, is a native of Poland and 

is now allegedly stateless. He was admitted for permanent residence on March 2, 1952. Shortly thereafter he went to Germany 

where his affairs detained him for several years. In Germany he 

was convicted on February 12, 1954, for forgery. He served a short 

prioon term. Whon it came time to return to the United Statee he 

applied for a visa and was found qualified to receive one as a returning resident. He did not reveal that he had been convicted or 

arrested. The visa was issued on November 1, 1955, and the applicant applied for admission on December 7, 1955. After a series of 

hearings he was found excludable on the ground contained in the 

caption. 

The special inquiry officer granted a waiver of the ground of inadmissibility resulting from the conviction of crime under section 

5 of the Act of September 11, 1957, and ordered the applicant's 

admission. Ave believe that this action is proper. However, because of the wording of section 5, it cannot be used to make valid 

a visa issued prior to September 11, 1957. The action of the special 

inquiry officer, therefore, does not eliminate the inadmissibility resulting from the applicant's lack of a valid visa.. This lack of a 

valid document will be waived under section 211(b) of the Immi249 

962713-61-18 
gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1181(b)). We shall also 

waive any grounds of inadmissibility which may have arisen out of 

the obtaining of the visa on November I, 1955, without revealing 

the facts concerning his arrest and conviction for forgery. 

Order: It is ordered that the applicant's readmission be authorized as a returning resident without his being required to obtain 

documents, under the authority of section 211(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

it do further ordered that any grounds of inadmissibility arising 

out of the applicant's failure to reveal his arrest and conviction for 

forgery when he applied for the visa issued on November 1, 1955, 

be and the same is hereby waived under sections 5 and 7 of Public 

Law 85-316. 

It is further ordered that the order of the special inquiry officer 

permitting the applicant's admission to the United States as a returning resident be and the same is hereby approved. 

250
Unassociated Document


exhibit 10.11


 





 


 




  





1











  






 






 


 




  





2











  




 






 


 




  





3
Exhibit 10.129


 








EXTENSION AGREEMENT


 


Dated this 3rd day of February 2010 and effective
June 30, 2008 (the "Effective Date") by and between Viral Genetics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
and Dr. Eric S. Rosenberg ("Consultant").


 


WHEREAS Company and Consultant are party to a Consulting Agreement
dated July 1, 2006 (the "Original Agreement") and wish to extend it subject to certain terms and conditions.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and lawful consideration and of the mutual
covenants contained herein and the mutual benefits to be derived hereunder, the parties agree as follows:


 


	1.		The Parties represent and warrant that the Term of the Original Agreement was verbally
extended on the Effective Date and that this Extension Agreement represents a formal documentation of same.



	2.		The Term of the Original Agreement is hereby extended indefinitely until such time
as it is terminated in accordance with Section 13 of the Original Agreement.



	3.		All other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall continue in full force
and effect, including without limitation, those in Exhibit D therein entitled "Viral Genetics Intellectual Property Agreement",
from June 30, 2008 through the date hereof.



 


AGREED and entered into as of the date affixed hereof.


 


COMPANY:


VIRAL GENETICS, INC.


 


By __________________________


Duly Authorized Officer


 


 


CONSULTANT:


 


/s/ Eric S. Rosenberg, MD








Eric S. Rosenberg, MD
38880 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Notices

abandonment and discontinuance, if

any, on the environment and historic

resources. The Section of Environmental

Analysis (SEA) will issue an

environmental assessment (EA) by July

24, 1998. Interested persons may obtain

a copy of the EA by writing to SEA

(Room 500, Surface Transportation

Board, Washington, DC 20423) or by

calling SEA, at (202) 565–1545.

Comments on environmental and

historic preservation matters must be

filed within 15 days after the EA

becomes available to the public.

Environmental, historic preservation,

public use, or trail use/rail banking

conditions will be imposed, where

appropriate, in a subsequent decision.

Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR

1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of

consummation with the Board to signify

that it has exercised the authority

granted and fully abandoned the line. If

consummation has not been effected by

UP’s filing of a notice of consummation

by July 20, 1999, and there are no legal

or regulatory barriers to consummation,

the authority to abandon will

automatically expire.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: July 9, 1998.

By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–19284 Filed 7–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT

CORPORATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: United States Enrichment

Corporation.

SUBJECT: Board of Directors.

TIME AND DATE: 5:00 p.m., Wednesday,

July 22, 1998.

PLACE: USEC Corporate Headquarters,

6903 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD

20817.

STATUS: The meeting will be closed to

the public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: Privatization

of the Corporation.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Elizabeth Stuckle at 301/564–3399.

Dated: July 15, 1998.

Carol K. DiSibio,

Clerk to the Board.

[FR Doc. 98–19345 Filed 7–16–98; 9:11 am]

BILLING CODE 8720–01–M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Unaudited Balance Sheet and Statement of Income for the period ended June 30,
1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                    MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              1,754,800
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           6,168<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    1,760,968
<PP&E>                                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      1,760,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 126,987
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                          1,633,981<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        1,760,968
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       18,627<F3>
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       60,534<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (41,907)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (41,907)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (41,907)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              .004
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            .004


<FN>
<F1> Includes interest only.
<F2> Includes paid in capital only.
<F3> Includes interest income only.
<F4> Includes legal, accounting, manager, transfer agent and settlement
     administration and other fees.

</FN>

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3174 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3174

   To direct the Secretary of Defense to include questions regarding 
     supremacism, extremism, and racism in the workplace and equal 
   opportunity, command climate, and workplace and gender relations 
     surveys administered by the Office of People Analytics of the 
                         Department of Defense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 2019

Mr. Brown of Maryland introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of Defense to include questions regarding 
     supremacism, extremism, and racism in the workplace and equal 
   opportunity, command climate, and workplace and gender relations 
     surveys administered by the Office of People Analytics of the 
                         Department of Defense.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. QUESTIONS IN WORKPLACE SURVEYS REGARDING SUPREMACIST, 
              EXTREMIST, AND RACIST ACTIVITY.

    The Secretary of Defense shall include, in the workplace and equal 
opportunity, command climate, and workplace and gender relations 
surveys administered by the Office of People Analytics of the 
Department of Defense, questions regarding whether respondents have 
ever--
            (1) experienced or witnessed in the workplace--
                    (A) supremacist activity;
                    (B) extremist activity; or
                    (C) racism; and
            (2) reported activity described in paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
As you may know, the Zika virus outbreak has grown in size and is attracting interest in the 

United States and abroad. Zika virus infection during pregnancy has been linked to pregnancy 

loss and serious birth defects. However, there is still a lot we don't know. As a result of this 

emerging public health threat, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) activated 

its Emergency Operations Center to help coordinate the global public health response. Because 

of the serious health implications of the Zika virus, CDC wants to provide American 

Indian/Alaska Native tribes, organizations, and communities with the most up-to-date 

information and, as critical pa1tners, include them in our surveillance and prevention effo1ts. 

To understand more about Zika virus and its effects on pregnancy, CDC established the U.S. 

Zika Pregnancy Registry and is collaborating with state, tribal, local, and territorial health 

depaitments to collect and share infmmation about Zika virus infection. This information will 

help develop a clearer picture of how Zika affects pregnant women and their babies and will also 

help guide a comprehensive public health response. Because Zika virus is a nationally notifiable 

disease, CDC encourages tribal healthcare providers to repmt eligible pregnant women through 

their health depaitments. 

Information on the U.S. Zika Pregnancy Registry is available at www.cdc.gov/zika/hcproviders/registry.html, and we will answer questions emailed to ZikaPregnancy@cdc.gov. 

In addition, resources to help tribal health departments with Zika-related efforts, including 

communication, laboratory diagnostics, transmission, vector control, suppo1t for pregnant 

women, and tailored documents to assist with preparedness activities, are available at 

www.cdc.gov/zika/index.html and www.cdc.gov/zika/pdfs/ sctf-resource-menu. pdf. 

For more information or questions regarding Zika, please feel free to call the CDC Emergency 

Operations Centers watch desk at (770) 488-7100. 

Sincerely, 

Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH 

Director, CDC 

John M. Auerbach, MBA 

Associate Director for Policy 

Acting Director, Office for State, 

Tribal, Local and Territorial 

Suppmt, CDC
No. 10-11067.

#### Javier Avila-Aguilar, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 865, 132 S. Ct. 209,

181 L. Ed. 2d 113,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6483.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 420 Fed. Appx. 742.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18550]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-2597-000]


Nashua Hydro Associates; Notice of Filing

July 2, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 5, 1998, Nashua Hydro Associates tendered 
for filing a Notice of Withdrawal in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
and protests should be filed on or before July 13, 1998. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission to determine 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.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18550 Filed 7-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 11-5727.

#### Timothy Lester, Petitioner v. Kenneth S. Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

565 U.S. 920, 132 S. Ct. 344,

181 L. Ed. 2d 216,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6983.

October 3, 2011.

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