alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania

Col. James M. Callis, USA

Commander

United States Army Col. James Marchant Callis II, a native of Springfield, 

Virginia, was commissioned from The College of William and Mary, graduating 

as a Distinguished Military Graduate with a degree in Biology. He also holds a 

Masters of Arts in Management from Webster University.

Callis was first assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, where he served in a variety of 

positions, to include: SSA platoon leader and Fuel and Water platoon leader in 

the 62nd Quartermaster Company; aide-de-camp to the 13th Corps Support 

Command Commanding General; Supply and Transportation platoon leader for 

C Forward Support Company, 4th Forward Support Battalion (FSB) supporting 

1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 4th Infantry Division (4ID); and Battalion S-4 

for the 4th FSB.

Callis then served in Wiesbaden, Germany, as a Support Operations (SPO) plans officer in the 3rd Corps Support 

Command. He later deployed to Iraq as the maintenance management officer for the Division Support Command 

(DISCOM), 1st Armor Division (1AD). While deployed, he became the supply and services officer for the 123rd Main 

Support Battalion (MSB) before assuming command of A Company, 501st FSB, supporting 1st BCT, 1AD.

Following command, Callis returned to DISCOM as the materiel readiness officer and subsequently assumed the role 

of the SPO for the 123rd MSB. He also served as the SPO and S-3 operations officer for the 710th Brigade Support 

Battalion (BSB), 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York, during which time 

he deployed to Afghanistan. In his subsequent assignment, Callis served as a joint strategist on the Joint Staff before 

assuming command of the 64th BSB, 3rd BCT, 4ID. Following his command tour, Callis served as the 4ID Division G-4 

before accepting an Army War College Fellowship at Harvard University.

In July 2017, he joined the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4. 

Callis’ military education includes the Quartermaster Officer Basic Course, Combined Logistics Captains Career 

Course, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, Petroleum Officers Course, Rigger School, Command and General 

Staff College, Joint Professional Military Education II, and the Harvard Fellowship.

His awards and decorations include the Bronze Star Medal (with 1 Oak Leaf Cluster), Defense Meritorious Service 

Medal, Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 OLC), Joint Service Commendation Medal, Army Commendation Medal 

(with 2 OLC), Army Achievement Medal (with 3 OLC), Combat Action Badge, Parachutist Badge, and the Rigger 

Badge.
#### Jessica H. Silverman, Appellant, v Nancy Sciartelli, as Executrix of James J. Sciartelli, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 555]

— Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Murphy, J.), entered January 28, 2003, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motions are denied and the amended complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motions seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that she sustained when the vehicle that she was driving collided with a vehicle operated by James J. Sciartelli and owned by defendant Genuine Parts Company (Genuine Parts). James Sciartelli subsequently died, and plaintiff commenced this action against both the executrix of his estate and Genuine Parts. Defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and thus their motion should have been denied, “regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” *(Winegrad v New York Univ.*
      *1464
      *Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). In support of their motions, defendants relied solely on “claimed deficiencies in the plaintiffs proof’ *(Sterling v Town of Hempstead,*260 AD2d 628, 628 [1999]; *see Cincotta v City of New York,*292 AD2d 558, 559 [2002]; *Hicks v City of Buffalo,*281 AD2d 922 [2001]; *Porter v Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.,*224 AD2d 674 [1996]) and thus failed to meet their burden of affirmatively establishing that James Sciartelli “was free from negligence” *(Beyrle v Finneron,*229 AD2d 1010, 1011 [1996]; *see Green v County of Allegany,*300 AD2d 1077, 1077-1078 [2002]; *Tarson v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*278 AD2d 865, 866 [2000]).

We note that defendants’ reliance on the decision of the Third Department in *Wiwigac v Snedaker*(282 AD2d 801 [2001]) is misplaced. That case is distinguishable on its facts inasmuch as the injured plaintiff therein was involved in two successive accidents and testified at his deposition that he “had no idea” which accident caused his injuries *(id.*at 802). In moving for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him, defendant Walter Ronfeldt affirmatively established that the case fell within the rule set forth in *Ingersoll v Liberty Bank of Buffalo*(278 NY 1, 7 [1938]), thereby absolving him of any liability as a matter of law. Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.
Order entered July 28, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 12 - 01599 - CV VICTOR MALDONADO, Appellant

V. SUMEER HOMES, INC. , PALMER DRYWALL, L.L. C. , AND ISC BUILDING MAT ERIALS, INC., Appellee s On Appeal from the 101 st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 10 - 01137 - E



### O RDER The Court has before it the July 25, 2014 Notice of Automatic Stay of Proceedings filed by appellee Sumeer Homes , informing this Court that its insurance carrier, F reestone Insurance Company, has been declared impaired and is under a liquidation order

. Attached to the notice is a “Liquidation and Injunction Order with Bar Date” entered by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on July 22 , 2014. The order rec ites that Freestone was previously declared impaired and placed into rehabilitation by the chancery court

. T he court found the “impairment, insolvency, unsound condition and hazardous condition continues to exist” and determined further efforts to rehabil itate Freestone would be useless. The court determined liquidation was appropriate andappointed a receiver to liquidate Freestone. The order enjoins and restrains the prosecution of

any lawsuit for a period of 180 days. Under section 462.309(a) of the T exas Insurance Code, a proceeding in which an impaired insurer is a party or is obligated to defend a party in a court in this state, other than a proceeding directly related to the receivership or instituted by the receiver, is stayed for: (1) a six

- month period beginning on the later of the date of the designation of impairment or the date an ancillary proceeding is brought in this state; and (2) a subsequent period as determined by the court, if any. T EX
. I NS
. C ODE A NN
. art. § 462.309(a) (West 2009). Su bsections (b) and (c) provide that the stay applies to each party to the proceeding and that any deadlines imposed under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure are tolled during the stay. See id . § 462.309(b), (c). Ac cordingly, we REMOVE this cause from the September 17, 2014 submission docket. Further, we ABATE this case until January 18, 2015, which is 180 days from the date of the Delaware order

. See T EX
. I NS
. C ODE A NN
. art. 462.309(a) (West 2009)

.

/s/ MOLLY FRAN CIS PRESIDING JUSTICE
DoD 4000.25-7-M, December 2003

**DoD 4000.25-8-M**

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 4, April 29, 2016*

*Change 6*

**AP2.2. APPENDIX 2.2**

**FUND CODES**

1

	APPENDIX 2.2

1

	AP2.2-2		APPENDIX 2.2
No. 11-5291.

#### Michael Gaynor, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania.

565 U.S. 900, 132 S. Ct. 293,

181 L. Ed. 2d 177,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5704.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office, denied.

Same case below, 11 A.3d 1030.
No. 11-5270.

#### Vincent Hatch, Petitioner v. Tony Parker, Warden.

565 U.S. 898, 132 S. Ct. 290,

181 L. Ed. 2d 174,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5624.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 10.12.3**
**THIRD AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT**
          This Third Amendment to License Agreement (“Agreement”) dated effective asof February 18, 2004, as previously amended by the First and Second Amendments,dated February 19, 2002 and as of August 1, 2002, respectively (hereinafter,collectively referred to as “Agreement”), is made by and between Emerson RadioCorp. (“Licensor”) and Funai Corporation, Inc. (“Licensee”).
          WHEREAS, Licensor and Licensee are parties to the Agreement; and
          WHEREAS, the parties wish to continue their relationship pursuant to theAgreement after December 31, 2004, which date presently is the end of theInitial Term of the Agreement.
          NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to the following:
 1. Capitalized Terms and Exhibit C. All capitalized terms notdefined herein shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement. Allreferences to Exhibit C and Amended Exhibit C in the Agreement shallhereinafter refer to the Second Amended Exhibit C, a copy of whichis annexed hereto.  2. Amendment of Section 3(a) of the Agreement. Section 3(a) ofthe Agreement shall be amended to read as follows:  “(a) Subject to the earlier expiration or termination of thisAgreement as provided in Section 9 or otherwise, this Agreementshall be effective as of the Effective Date and expire as of theclose of business on December 31, 2005 (the “Initial Term”), subjectto renewal for successive three-year periods thereafter provided (i)Licensee has paid to Licensor all Royalties and Minimum Royalties(as hereinafter defined) payable for each Contract Year as set forthherein in Second Amended Exhibit C of this Agreement, (ii) Licenseehas satisfied and/or complied with all of its obligations hereunder,and (iii) the parties mutually agree in writing as to the minimumroyalties and gross sales projections for any such renewal term.Each successive renewal period shall hereinafter be referred to as a“Renewal Term.” “Initial Term” and “Renewal Term” shall collectivelybe referred to as “Term”.”  3. All Other Provisions of the Agreement. All other provisionsof the Agreement not amended herein shall continue to have theirfull force and effect.
          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Third Amendment has been executed by the dulyauthorized representative of each party effective as of the date set forthabove.      EMERSON RADIO CORP. FUNAI CORPORATION, INC.      By: /s/ John J. Raab
Squire Sanders (US) LLP

1200 19th Street, NW

Suite 300

Washington, DC 20036

O +1 202 626 6600

F +1 202 626 6780

squiresanders.com

Edward W. Sauer

T +1 202 626 6641

edward.sauer@squiresanders.com

356357/1/WASHINGTON

May 23, 2014

Via Email and regulations.gov

Brett Kruger

U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Application of Alaska Airlines, Inc. for an Exemption Authorizing Seasonal 

Service Between Portland, Oregon and San Jose del Cabo and Puerto Vallarta, 

Mexico; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0078

Dear Mr. Kruger:

This letter is to advise that Alaska has polled all of the carriers on the service list 

attached to the application referenced above and there are no objections. Accordingly, we 

respectfully request that the application for exemption be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward W. Sauer

cc: info@airlineinfo.com
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dectron Internationale Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending April 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ness
Lakdawala, Chief Executive 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:

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 result of operations of the Company.

                                 By: /s/ Ness Lakdawala
                                 ----------------------
                                 Name: Ness Lakdawala
                                 Title: Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



                              FAB INDUSTRIES, INC.

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Fab Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending November 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Samson Bitensky,
Chief Executive 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:

         (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.



By: /s/ Samson Bitensky
    --------------------------

Samson Bitensky
Chief Executive Officer
January 27, 2005
No. 10-10476.

#### Abdul-Aziz Rashid Muhammad, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 803, 132 S. Ct. 372,

181 L. Ed. 2d 3,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6772.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
**DoD 4000.25-1-M**

*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP7.23. APPENDIX 7.23**

**PRECIOUS METALS INDICATOR CODES**

1

APPENDIX 2.23

AP7.23-1

APPENDIX 7.23
Exhibit 10.10


 





ADDENDUM TO RETAINER
AGREEMENT


 


THIS
ADDENDUM supplements that certain Attorney Fee Agreement and contract of engagement (hereinafter, the "Agreement")
made and entered into by and between e.Digital Corporation, (hereinafter, referred to as "e.Digital"), and HANDAL &
ASSOCIATES, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "Attorney") effective on September 14, 2012.


 


I.Amended
Scope of Engagement


 


In
addition to the existing Scope of the Agreement, e.Digital further engages Attorney to represent it in connection with claims
for, licensing and to recover damages, losses, and other appropriate relief related to e.Digital's:


 


		(a)	Nunchi® Patent Portfolio constituting US Patent No's:
8,311,522; 8,306,514; 8,311,523; 8,311,524; 8,315,618; or 8,315,619 along with all related continuations, continuations in part,
patent applications and patents.



 


		(b)	MicroSignet Patent Portfolio constituting US Patent No.:
8,572,440 along with all related continuations, continuations in part, patent applications and patents.



 


II. What
This Agreement Covers


 


This
Addendum supplements the Agreement and except as set forth herein, no other modifications, express or implied, are deemed to be
made to the Agreement.


 


III.No
Guarantees or Representations


 


Attorney has made no representations or guarantees
as to any ultimate outcome.


 


IV.Advice
of Independent Lawyer


 


CLIENT
HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ATTORNEY HAS ADVISED THE CLIENT THAT CLIENT MUST HAVE AN INDEPENDENT LAWYER REVIEW THIS ADDENDUM AND
ADVISE THE CLIENT AS TO ALL MATTERS SET FORTH HEREIN. CLIENT FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT HAS HAD AN INDEPENDENT LAWYER REVIEW
THIS ADDENDUM WHO HAS ADVISED CLIENT ACCORDINGLY AND OR WAIVES SUCH RIGHT.


 


THE
PARTIES HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING TERMS AND AGREE TO THEM AS OF THE DATE ATTORNEY FIRST PROVIDED SE VICES. THE CLIENT
SHALL RECEIVE A FULL EXECUTED DUPLICATE OF THIS ADDENDUM.


 





	/s/ Alfred Falk	 	/s/ Anton Handal
	Client: e.Digital Corporation	 	HANDAL & ASSOCIATES, INC/Anton Handal, Esq.
# CLIN Suffix Table
No. 10-263.

#### Sony Music Entertainment, fka Sony BMG Music Entertainment, et al., Petitioners v. Kevin Starr, et al.

562 U.S. 1168, 131 S. Ct. 901,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 429.

178 L. Ed. 2d 803,

January 10, 2011.

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

The Chief Justice and Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 592 F.3d 314.
No. 10-10717.

#### Winfred H. LaVirgne, Petitioner v. James D. Hartley, Warden.

565 U.S. 846, 132 S. Ct. 163,

181 L. Ed. 2d 77,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6201.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 421 Fed. Appx. 774.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-12407

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:18-cr-00166-PGB-LRH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

CATRELL IVORY, 

a.k.a. Woosa,

a.k.a. Woo, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 16, 2020)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, BRANCH and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 19-12407 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 1 of 2
2

Thomas H. Dale, appointed counsel for Catrell Ivory in this direct criminal 

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ivory has filed 

a responsive brief. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals 

no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and 

Ivory’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-12407 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 2 of 2
Filed 2/5/14 P. v. Rebaldo CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSHUA DAVID REBALDO,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B251058 (Super. Ct. No. F485043 (San Luis Obispo County)

Joshua David Rebaldo a ppeals from the judgment entered after he pled no contest to receiving stolen proper ty (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) 1 and admitted a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5 , subd. (b)). Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court sentenced appellant to four years state prison. Appellant was ordered to pay victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), a $1,200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $1,200 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction fee (Gov. Code § 70373). Appellant filed a notice of appeal a nd a request for certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5, subd. (a)) alleging, amon g other things, that he suffered from a psychiatric disability.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.2 We appointed counsel to represent appe llant in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, counsel filed a brie f raising no issues. On December 6, 2013, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within wh ich to personally submit any

contentions or issues that he wished to rais e on appeal. No response has been received.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully comp lied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125- 126.) The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

PERREN, J.3 Hugh F. Mullin, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

________________ ______________

California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director a nd Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorey for Appellant.
#### *State, Respondent, v. Rieman, Petitioner,*

No. 91991-7.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 45569-2-II, May 27, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1036. *Denied*December 2, 2015.
Unassociated Document




Exhibit
10.63


 


 


EXTENSION AND CONFIRMATION AGREEMENT


 


 



Made
this 15th day of
December 2011 (the "Effective Date") by and between Viral Genetics. Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Richard
Gerstner ("Consultant"),




 


WHEREAS Company and Consultant are party to a Consulting Agreement dated January 1, 2008 (the "Agreement") that they:verbally agreed to extend for one year on or about each of December 31, 2009 and. December 31, 2010 as provided for in Section I therein, and are mutually desirous of memorializing those extensions, and further desire to extend the Agreement for an additional year through December 31, 2012.


 


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.  

	
Consultant is owed and Company shall deliver a total of 400,000 shares of common stock of Company for services provided for the two years ending December 31, 2011.








	
2.  

	
The Term of the Consulting Agreement is hereby extended until December 31, 2012.








	
3.  

	
All other terms and conditions of the Consulting Agreement, including, without limitation, those in Exhibit A therein entitled "Viral Genetics Intellectual Property Agreement", shall continue in full force and effect.







 


AGREED and entered into as of the date affixed hereof.


 


 




	 	 
COMPANY:

	 
	 	 
VIRAL GENETICS, INC.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ Haig Keledjian	 
	 	Duly authorized Officer	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	CONSULTANT:	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Richard Gerstner	 
	 	Richard Gerstner