alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DLA Distribution Pearl Harbor

Mr. Bernard V. Domingo 

Acting Deputy Commander

Bernard Domingo is currently the Acting Deputy Commander of Defense 

Logistics Agency Distribution Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. From 2015 to 2023, 

Domingo served various leadership positions at DDPH as retail operations 

chief, accountable officer, and wholesale operations chief. Also, during this 

time Domingo was selected to fill key billets as DLA Distribution liaison officer 

to DLA Headquarters Agency Synchronization and Operations Center in Fort 

Belvoir, Virginia, from September 2020 to February 2021 and interim deputy 

commander at DLA Distribution Yokosuka Japan from September to December 

2022. He previously served as AO at DDYJ from 2011 to 2015. 

Domingo worked in Japan for DLA Disposition Services from 2008 to 2011 in 

Okinawa as a controlled property center researcher, in Yokosuka as a disposal service representative, in Sagami as 

the environmental chief, in Misawa as a temporary site director and deployed for six months to Camp Speicher, 

Iraq, as part of the Civilian Expeditionary Workforce. Domingo was a Navy Supply Corps officer and served 

onboard USS Ponce (LPD 15) in Norfolk, Virginia; supply officer, Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, Okinawa, 

Japan; and supply officer onboard USS Vandegrift (FFG 48) in Yokosuka, Japan. 

Domingo graduated from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, in 1996 with a Bachelor 

of Science in Weapons and Systems Engineering. He has a Master of Arts in Management, completed advance 

courses in Economics, completed the LOGTECH Executive Development Program at the University of North 

Carolina at Chapel Hill, was an adjunct professor for Leadership and Management and is a certified Lean Six 

Sigma Green Belt. He is currently pursuing a Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership. 

During his military and civilian careers, Domingo has received several organizational and team awards including 

four DLA Strategic Goals Team Awards, two annual Global Distribution Excellence Team Awards, two Joint 

Meritorious Unit Awards and others. Individual awards include a Meritorious Civilian Service Award, three 

Superior Civilian Service Awards, Global War on Terror Medal, Humanitarian Service Award, qualified as a 

Surface Warfare Supply Corps officer, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, two Navy/Marine Corps 

Achievement Medals and others.
DLM 4000.25, Volume 4

1

DIC FG1/FG2/GG1/GG2 FORMAT

GSA CUSTOMER SUPPLY CENTER BILLING

Field Legend Position(s) Entry and Instructions

DI Code 1-3 Enter 

FG1 or GG1 (charge) 

FG2 or GG2 (credit)

RI Code 4-6 Enter the RI code of the GSA billing 

office.

Blank 7 Leave blank

Stock Number 8-22 Enter a pseudo-part number constructed 

as follows:

08-09 Type Item code

10-13 zero fill 

14-20 Agency Internal Code. Enter if 

provided on the application. 

Otherwise, leave blank.

21-22 GSA Stock Number. Enter the 

GSA store number of the Center 

reporting purchases.

U/I 23-24 Enter AT for assortment.

Quantity 25-29 Enter A00001".

Document Number 30-43 Enter a pseudo-document number 

constructed by the billing office as 

follows:

30-35 Activity Address Code. (DoDAAC) 

provided on application form.

36-39 Date. Year within decade and day 

of year purchase. Self-service 

purchase date is the sales ticket 

receipt date. Customer Supply Center 

purchase date is the order process 

date.

40-43 Serial Number. Sales ticket receipt 

number for self-service store 

purchases and last four digits of 
DLM 4000.25, Volume 4

2

Field Legend Position(s) Entry and Instructions

GSA=s transaction number for 

customer supply center purchases.

Blank 44 Leave blank.

Supplementary Address 45-50 Billed office code (DoDAAC) provided on 

application.

Signal Code 51 Enter signal code B

Fund Code 52-53 Enter fund code provided on the 

application. If not provided on the 

application, XP is assigned.

Bill Number 54-58 Enter bill number from SBR.

Blank 59-61 Leave blank.

Day of Year 62-64 Enter the Julian 

day of the year delivered for 

purchases. day of the year adjusted 

for adjustments.

Amount 65-73 Enter amount of sales order.

Unit Price 74-80 Leave blank
S16Y1755.

#### IN THE MATTER OF LYLE VINCENT ANDERSON.

(791 SE2d 769)

Per curiam.

Attorney Lyle Vincent Anderson (Bar No. 017722) was convicted of forgery in the first degree, see OCGA § 16-9-1 (b), for having falsified a written agreement for the payment of legal fees, and the Court of *749Appeals affirmed his conviction.1 See *Anderson v. State,*335 Ga. App. 78 (778 SE2d 826) (2015). Anderson then offered the voluntary surrender of his license to practice law, admitting that his conviction amounts to a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. The special master2 recommends that we accept that offer, as does the State Bar of Georgia. We agree that a voluntary surrender, which is tantamount to disbarment, is appropriate in these circumstances. See *In the Matter of*Skandalakis, 279 Ga. 865 (621 SE2d 750) (2005) (disbarment for making false statement to FBI agent); *In the Matter of Swindall,*266 Ga. 553 (468 SE2d 372) (1996) (disbarment for perjury in grand jury testimony); *In the Matter of Staples,*262 Ga. 184 (417 SE2d 152) (1992) (disbarment for false statements in immigration application); *In the Matter of Holland,*254 Ga. 365 (331 SE2d 881) (1985) (disbarment for false swearing). Accordingly, we accept the voluntary surrender of Anderson’s license to practice law, and it is hereby ordered that the name of Lyle Vincent Anderson be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Anderson is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Decided October 3, 2016.

*Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Jonathan W. Hewett, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Voluntary surrender of license accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 This Court suspended Anderson from the practice of law pending the exhaustion of his appeals from the conviction. *See In the Matter of Anderson,*296 Ga. 633 (769 SE2d 393) (2015).

2

 We appointed Paul T. Carroll as special master in this case.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3097 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to expand eligibility for public 

service student loan forgiveness to certain contractor employees of national laboratories. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2019 

Mr. SWALWELL of California (for himself, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. SOTO, Mr. PETERS, and Ms. DEGETTE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to expand 

eligibility for public service student loan forgiveness to 

certain contractor employees of national laboratories. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness in Forgive5 ness Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3097 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES OF NA2 TIONAL LABORATORIES FOR PUBLIC SERV3 ICE STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS. 

4 Section 455(m)(3)(B) of the Higher Education Act 

5 of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(m)(3)(B)) is amended— 

6 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

7 (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the 

8 end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

10 clause: 

11 ‘‘(iii) a full-time job as an employee of 

12 a management and operating contractor of 

13 a National Laboratory (as defined in sec14 tion 2(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

15 (42 U.S.C. 15801(3))) assigned to a posi16 tion at such laboratory.’’. 

17 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

18 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

19 take effect as if enacted on October 1, 2007. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### *State, Respondent, v. Nava, Petitioner,*

No. 91985-2.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 32842-2-II, June 25, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 1031. *Denied*December 2, 2015.
OFFICE OF THE A'ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUBTIN 
chapter Nl880 ta a lwgulation of the 

prrotioo oi madfo%nh There 18 nothing 

in this Oaaptev whiti pwhiblta tha sale 

OS wmtmeoptivaa 852 nakoa It a penal 

offense al088 the abowo qtmted portim 

or Ilrt. 740, P. 6. baa that OrrOot. YOU 

will ateto that Art. 7Jh0, P. 6. aeta oirt 

oi&aln exwptiana to ‘Mm offanra eonMoCed dth tha pnotioe ar lwwdtto. 

Awtiale 740, Peaal Code, aa amended, la aa rollowat 

.Wtbiag in thlll Ghaptet ahall bo 80 

aonatmted 88 to dlaadminate a&ainrt any 

partiaular school 0~ ayataa or madhal gmaotioe, nw to 8rraot or lwit in any 

way the appltaatian VP use .0r the prinolples, 

tot&a,- OP teaohlnga or say ehmah in tha 

tdtmtwti0tt 8th the 8i0k 0~ msir0attj w 

pnpr, vithmtt th0 ore or q b2g VP mtO2-m 

rsamdy, pmvidod aanltary and wamnthe lava 

and squlAtiana are waplled witht and 3mnm.d 

rwther, that all those 80 mlnlatwlng 0~ orfoe 

fng 80 mfnfater to the alok or suffering by 

prayer shall refmln froa mlntal&ng orfiaea, 

exarpt for the pwpoao 0r exwaiaing tha minalpl~a, taneta, or to8e.bIa88 or the 6huroh 0r 

vhbh they am bona ride aembora. The uroviaiona or thir Clmptar do not amlr to.dantiata, 

guly qualified and mngiatorod under the lava or 

thiaaBtat0, who ooaf3ae their praatlae atriatlr 

to dmtlat~; no~ to duly liaeumed optomtrlata, 

who aonfLna their pnatiae l tpiatly to optomtry 

na deftned by at#utm$ POD to -888, who p-aties nuraSng only, ‘DDT to du4 lleenaed ohiropodlata, vha aonflnetheir pwati00 atriatly to 

&ropo&y aa dt?iined by atatutei nOs to pulB*~~ 
-_. 

419 

-9:' (Underaowtng a4wa) 

We-t~oul~~JBIItbt~~~2nedpo~ic0 

of thla artble la an ateeption, 8Wtewgh It uamee at the end 

0r~~~~i~liat0ru6~tfolu, thewholob0bge0dws.ad 

ln Vernoni Amtotatad Penal~U6do 88 'ewo9tlaua.R Znatead, 

tt aoama to ua to bo an inebaltut a rwthe~ defbxltion or 

* inX to thoae *et out in Artlale 

Bat a aerioua f4ueatlon rrlaea aa to whether. aaid 

aentenuo la too vague and inbrrinih to defina a penal 0rm.80, 

ao aa to me&t the mquiremmta or Artialea 1~8nd 6 or the ?elul 

&de of 1925. Ihia qtoatlcnt appear8 to 0s 80 crloao that vo 

think it improper r0r ua to pa88 on It, wUhout a pvaewnt 

0r the @.n1~8 0r tMmbhl Armala. 

Yrowa very truly 

w. R. Allen 

Aaaiatant
No. 10-1494.

#### Brian J. Cesar, Petitioner v. City of Sheboygan, Wisconsin.

565 U.S. 824, 132 S. Ct. 114,

181 L. Ed. 2d 39,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5634.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District II, denied.

Same case below, 330 Wis. 2d 760, 796 N.W.2d 429.
EXHIBIT 32.2


Certification of the Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In connection with this annual report of Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, David O’Neil, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
 
 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: September 9, 2010
 
 
 /s/David O’NeilDavid O’NeilTreasurer and Principal Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.1**
**Certification**
I, James J. McGonigle, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Corporate Executive Board Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: July 28, 2004 /s/ James J. McGonigleJames J. McGonigleChief Executive Officer
No. 10-1485.

#### Kenneth L. Smith, Petitioner v. Christine M. Arguello, et al.

565 U.S. 824, 132 S. Ct. 113,

181 L. Ed. 2d 38,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5287.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 415 Fed. Appx. 57.
Supply PRC 03-3 Meeting 

Agenda

Tuesday, April 20 (beginning at 1:00 p.m.) - Thursday, April 22, 2003 

Ft. Belvoir, VA - McNamara HQ Complex

Room 3801
How to Request eDAASINQ Access

Page 1 of 2

You can query DoDAACs and RICs on the DAASINQ web site at: 

https://home.daas.dla.mil/DAASINQ/default.asp or you can perform more advanced queries using 

eDAASINQ. This document shows you how to request access to eDAASINQ.

You can also find a lot of information about DoDAACs and RICs at the Department of Defense Activity 

Address Directory (DoDAAD) Process Review Committee (PRC) Site: http://www.dla.mil/DoDAAD

Use this site to submit a System Access Request (SAR) to get access to eDAASINQ: 

https://home.daas.dla.mil/daashome/homepage.asp

After proceeding through a few screens, it will bring you to the screen depicted on page 2 of this 

document.
How to Request eDAASINQ Access

Page 2 of 2

Once your access to eDAASINQ has been approved, you will be sent an email with an ID and Password. 

Don’t delete that email. The ID and Password, along with an associated URL, are used to register your 

CAC. Once your CAC is registered, you will be granted access to the DAAS Web Portal: 

https://portal.daas.dla.mil/portal/portal.asp. After your CAC has been successfully registered, you can 

delete the e-mail with your ID and password.

We strongly recommend you create a reminder on your calendar every 2 weeks to login into both the 

DoDAAD Update Tool and eDAASINQ. Logging into the portal is not enough. You have to launch each 

tool. If you go 30 days without logging in, your account will be suspended. After 45 days, it will be 

revoked, and you will have to submit a new SAR to regain access. In order to get your count reinstated 

after being suspended, you need to contact ITOC@dla.mil.

We have achieved the best results by walking CSPs through making their first few new DoDAAC 

creations and/or updates. For further assistance, please send an e-mail to DoDAAD@dla.mil.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 25, 2013

h1022

Order 

Clerk

October 25, 2013

147230

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147230

COA: 312664

Oakland CC: 2011-235676-FH

TERENCE DARRYLE JENKINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 9, 2013 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

MARKMAN, J. For the reasons set forth in my separate dissenting statement in 

People v Alexander, 494 Mich 876, 878-879 (2013), I would remand this case to the trial 

court and require that court to articulate reasons explaining and justifying its specific 

upward departure from the sentencing guideline range in this case in accordance with 

People v Smith, 482 Mich 292 (2008). 

MCCORMACK, J., joins the statement of MARKMAN, J.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

Order 

March 8, 2019

158038

STEPHANIE SHERMAN, KAYLA

ROLLEND, AMANDA ROLLEND, 

by her Next Friend JACOB MARCINIAK,

and EMILY ROLLEND, by her Next

Friend JACOB MARCINIAK,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 158038

COA: 333514

Macomb CC: 2015-000040-NO

ISRAEL BROS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 24, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

MARKMAN, J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent from this Court’s order denying leave to appeal for the 

reasons set forth in my dissenting statement in Thompson v Gibson, ___ Mich ___ (2019) 

(MARKMAN, J., dissenting). This case, as with Thompson, concerns whether a landlord 

possessed constructive notice of a defect within leased premises that caused injury to a 

tenant. In my judgment, the Court of Appeals majority failed to recognize and address 

the proper legal inquiry as laid out in my Thompson dissent; i.e., it failed to examine 

whether the landlord knew or should have known of the defect before leasing the 

property. However, unlike in Thompson—in which this Court has already once 

remanded for reconsideration—in the instant case, the Court of Appeals has not had the 

opportunity to reconsider its conclusion in light of clearly applicable legal principles. 

Moreover, the proper application of these principles in the instant case is somewhat less 

clear than in Thompson, given that plaintiffs here provided expert testimony (although 

arguably of insufficient precision) regarding the duration of the alleged defect, and the 

specific nature of that defect—corrosion of a water heater—seems somewhat more likely 

to have arisen over a substantial period of time than the defect in Thompson. While I am 

unsure whether this evidence gives rise to a genuine issue of material fact that the 
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 8, 2019 

a0305

2

Clerk

landlord should have known of this defect when the lease was signed four years before

the injury occurred, the issue nonetheless is worthy of plenary appellate review under the 

proper legal standard. Accordingly, I would remand to the Court of Appeals for 

reconsideration in light of the legal framework set forth in my dissent in Thompson.
Exhibit 10.62


 


 


 


 



    	1



    	 



    

 






    	2



    	 



    

 






    	3



    	 



    

 


RESEARCH 2.0





Technology Industry Research & Advisory


 


 


Additional Business Development Support Services Amendment to:


 


Agreement Name: Viral Genetics/VG Energy


Client Viral Genetics


Dated 12/12/11


 






    	4



    	 



    

 


Amendment Description


 


This amendment allows Research 2.0 (R2)
to engage with potential business partners or sources of capital and make introductions when there is a fit.


 


In exchange for these services R2
is eligible to receive compensation on completed deals and transactions per this amendment. This compensation is only for transactions
in which R2 has played a role.


 


R2
activities shall be limited to making introductions to qualified potential business partners and investors. R2
will not be involved in structuring any transaction, nor induce prospective partners or investors
to take specific actions. R2 shall not play a role whatsoever
in negotiating or effecting transactions. R2 may not
receive payments for introductions from broker/dealer organizations.


 


 


 






    	5



    	 



    

 


Qualification and Duration


 


R2
will communicate regularly as to which targets are being approached. Client has the ability to “wave off” a prospect.
In these cases R2 will make no further efforts nor qualify
for any compensation for a transaction from that source.


 


In cases where the value of a deal or transaction is not straightforward both
the Client and R2 will create an estimate of the approximate
expected value. The R2 fee will based on an average of
these two estimates. If the Client objects to this R2
agrees to be bound to the outcome a professionally recognized third party arbitration process. These services are to be paid for
by the Client.


 


Unless increased in writing by the Client total cumulative fees due to R2
shall not exceed $500,000.


 


If a qualifying transaction closes within 18 months of the termination of the
R2 / Client Agreement R2
would still be entitled to compensation.


 


 


 









    	6



    	 



    

 


Compensation Terms


 


When a qualifying transaction occurs R2
will apply the following schedule to determine an amount to invoice:


 


A. <=$1M value: 7% of the amount


B. Up to $2M value: - The above (A) plus 5% of the portion
between $1M and $2M


C. > 42M value - The above (B) plus 3% of the portion above
$2M


 


Transactions may include anything including sales, distribution
agreements, licensing deals, capital infusions and M&A.


 


In cases where a transaction value isn’t known, will vary or
is governed by a contract period the compensation amount will be computed semi-annually and invoices based on cumulative
value.


 


Invoices are due and payable when related monies are received
by the Client.


 


 



    	7



    	 



    


 






    	8



    	 



    

 





 


 


 






    	9