alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THOMAS M. GARY 

Is inducted into the Defense Personnel Support Center Hall of Fame this third day of June 1997 for 

his extraordinary leadership and support as the Chief Supervisory Management Analyst in the 

Office of Planning & Management - and for his continuous outstanding mission support throughout 

his tenure at DPSC – from 1954 to 1975. Mr. Gary’s progressive approach put DPSC on the cutting 

edge of technology and business systems. He helped design and implement the Automated Payroll 

Cost and Personnel System (APCAPS), and he developed the specifications for the cost accounting 

segment. He served as the Project Officer for developing and implementing the Perishable 

Subsistence Automated Supply System (PSASS) in the U.S., and significantly aided in incorporating 

the system worldwide. Mr. Gary also developed simplified specifications for the Supply Automated 

Material Management System (SAMMS). 

Hall of Fame Inductees Page 1 of 1

https://www.troopsupport.dla.mil/about_us/gary.htm 1/21/2016
Tom Kilpatrick

6412 Briarwood Lane

Nichols Hills, OK 73116

- 5612

May 19, 2016

United States Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE,

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition for Amendment to Add Aircraft to Exemption # 12152 Issued to Tom Kilpatrick (Regulatory

Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 1661)

Dear Sir or Madam:

I was granted an exemption to conduct aerial photography, videogra phy, inspection and training

using a DJI Inspire 1. I (Regulatory Do cket No. FAA

- 2015

- 1661) request for an amendment to that

exemption to add onto my fleet a DJI Phantom 2 Vision+. I agree to ope rate under the same restrictions

in the exemption. I will submit the manuals as a Comment in the above

- referenced docket.

Granting the additional aircraft will benefit the public because instead of dangerous helicopters

being used, safer and quieter unmanned aircraft can be used under the restr ictions outlined in the

exemption.

Since the Phantom 2 Vision+ platform has been previously granted in other exemptions and

would not set any precedent, there is good cause to waive the publishing of th is petition in the Federal

Register.

Sincerely,

Tom Kilpatrick

/tk

Enclosures
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38825-38826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19188]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-2-8-001]


South Georgia Natural Gas Company; Notice of Filing

July 14, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 9, 1998, South Georgia Natural Gas Company 
(South Georgia) tendered for filing certain additional information 
concerning its Fuel Retention Percentage (FRP).
    South Georgia states that its filing is in compliance with the 
Commission's June 24, 1998 order directing South Georgia to file 
supplemental data to explain the increase in its FRP as proposed by 
South Georgia in its May 29, 1998, filing in the instant proceeding.
    South Georgia states that copies of the filing will be served on 
all parties designated on the official service list compiled by the 
Secretary in these proceedings.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before July 21, 1998. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to

[[Page 38826]]

be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-19188 Filed 7-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2015081EN.01002001.xml

| 9.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/20

---

Order of the General Court of 13 January 2015 — Istituto di vigilanza dell’urbe v Commission

(Case T-579/13) (1)

1

((Action for annulment and damages - Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of security guard and reception services - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2015/C 081/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Istituto di vigilanza dell’urbe SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: D. Dodaro and S. Cianciullo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Cappelletti and F. Moro, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action, first, for annulment of the decision of the Commission rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in connection with the call for tenders published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (2013/S 101-172120) and awarding lot No 1 concerning the provision of security guard and reception services to another tenderer, as well as any prior, associated or subsequent act, including the contract concluded with the successful tenderer, and, second, for compensation for the damage sustained on account of the award of the contract to the successful tenderer.

Official Journal of the European Union

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The Istituto di vigilanza dell’urbe SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the application for interim measures, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Istituto di vigilanza dell’urbe SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the application for interim measures, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.

1

---
|    |                                                                                                                                           |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (this “Report”) of Contura Energy, Inc. (the “Registrant”); and |
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report. |

|                               |
|-------------------------------|
|                               |
| Date: April 13, 2020          |
|                          |
| By: /s/ David J. Stetson      |
| David J. Stetson              |
| Chief Executive Officer       |
| (Principal Executive Officer) |

|                                                                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                |
| Date: April 13, 2020                                           |
|                                                           |
| By: /s/ Charles Andrew Eidson                                  |
| Charles Andrew Eidson                                          |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer           |
| (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
No. 11-6810.

#### Martay Love, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1021, 132 S. Ct. 568,

181 L. Ed. 2d 409,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8060.

November 7, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
No. 10-11007.

#### Antoine O’Garro, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 862, 132 S. Ct. 201,

181 L. Ed. 2d 107,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6315.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
No. 11-6951.

#### Ricky Gene Minor, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1045, 132 S. Ct. 601,

181 L. Ed. 2d 440,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8131.

November 14, 2011.

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

Same case below, 439 Fed. Appx. 233.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23
CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use of our report dated January 28, 2000 in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K relating to the Consolidated Financial Statements of F&M
National Corporation and Subsidiaries, appearing under Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data, including, without limitation, the
incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses constituting part of the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (#333-63111) and Form S-8 (#333-63113) of
F&M National Corporation.



                                                /s/  YOUNT, HYDE & BARBOUR, P.C.


March 22, 2000
Winchester, Virginia
No. 11-5838.

#### In re Darrell Turner, Petitioner.

565 U.S. 813, 132 S. Ct. 392,

181 L. Ed. 2d 247,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6346.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50792

Summary Calendar

 

BOBBY L. KIMBRELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHEVRON USA INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-95-CV-224

- - - - - - - - - -

September 8, 1997

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bobby L. Kimbrell appeals the district court’s grant of

summary judgment for Chevron USA, Inc., arguing that there are

genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment as to

age discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional

distress claims. We have reviewed the record and the parties’

briefs and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for essentially

the same reasons set forth by the district court. Kimbrell v.

Chevron USA, Inc., No. MO-95CV-224 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 1996).
No. 

-2-

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, and in connection with the quarterly report on
Form  10-QSB of State of  Franklin  Bancshares,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  for the
quarter  ended  March  31,  2004,  as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Charles E. Allen,
Jr., the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive,
Financial and Accounting  Officer)of the Company,  hereby certifies 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.

     This Certification is signed on May 13, 2004.


                                              /s/ Charles E. Allen, Jr.
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Charles E. Allen, Jr.
                                             Chairman of the Board and
                                             Chief Executive Officer (Principal
                                             Executive, Financial and Accounting
                                             Officer)
No. 11-5452.

#### Abdel Eltayib, Petitioner v. Stephen M. DeWalt, Warden, et al.

565 U.S. 1046, 132 S. Ct. 606,

181 L. Ed. 2d 445,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8088.

November 14, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 908, 132 S. Ct. 314, 181 L. Ed. 2d 193, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 6148.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio , Texas

November 21, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00833

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.G. AND Z.A.G., CHILDREN

From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017FLI001815 C3 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was filed on October 3

, 201 9

. Therefore, the Texas Attorney General’s

a ppellee’s brief was due to be filed on November 4, 2019

. As of this date, n either the appellee’s brief nor a motion for extension o f time has been filed. It is therefore ORDERED that appellee show cause in writing within ten (1 0 ) days from the date of this order why this appeal should not be set at issue. If appellee fails to respond, this appeal will be set at issue without an appel lee’s brief.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 21st day of November, 2019

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
No. 11-248.

#### Santiago Meza-Corano, et al., Petitioners v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

565 U.S. 977, 132 S. Ct. 503,

181 L. Ed. 2d 348,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7914.

October 31, 2011.

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

Date for Receipt of Quotes....

Cutoff Time for Receipt.........

Item #

(K0000) Location Origin

# of 

Units Bulk Wt (lbs) WO3 (%)

NOTE: Minimum bid is one entire line item.

* All quotes must be submitted through the DLA-Strategic Materials Sales Portal

and quoters must be pre-approved in the site to participate

DLA - Strategic Materials Sales Portal

Tungsten Ores and Concentrates Offering

FISCAL YEAR 2022

Basic Ordering Agreement... DLA-Stockpile Materials-001-(BOA) - Tungsten Ores & Concentrates

May 9, 2022

May 10, 2022

12:00pm

WO3 

(lbsWO3) W (lbsW ) WO3 (STU) Lot # Type

Total Total Total Total Total

597 Scotia, NY P-2810-AR Scheelite Unknown 250 100674 72.88 73371.211 58183.370 3668.61

564 Scotia, NY P-3198-D Synthetic Scheelite Unknown 240 79456 72.9 57923.424 45933.275 2896.155

680 Scotia, NY P-3051-A Synthetic Scheelite Unknown 320 93227 64.8 60411.096 47905.999 3020.574

854 Scotia, NY P-3167-D Synthetic Scheelite Unknown 77 82929 72.49 60115.232 47671.379 3005.763

887 356,286 251,821 199,694 12,591
No. 10-10741.

#### Clifford Scott Eaton, Petitioner v. North Dakota.

565 U.S. 847, 132 S. Ct. 166,

181 L. Ed. 2d 79,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6281.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Dakota denied.

Same case below, 793 N.W.2d 790.
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 

LAND AND MARITIME 

P.O. BOX 3990 

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43218-3990 

MEMORANDUM FOR DLA LAND AND MARITIME 

SUBJECT: Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Statement 

.JUL 2 5 2022 

Equal employment opportunity is a vital and fundamental right of every individual. As 

Commander of DLA Land and Maritime,J am committed to ensuring that all employees and job 

applicants are fully accorded equal employment opportunities regardless of race, color, religion, 

sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, age, genetic information, and physical or 

mental disability in an environment of hard work, respect and integrity. Discrimination on these 

bases will not be tolerated. I am personally committed to the principles of Equal Opportunity 

and to taking affirmative measures to incorporate these principles into three major DLA areas of 

focus: warfighter support, stewardship excellence, and workforce development. 

The responsibility for an effective Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program 

resides with all DLA Land and Maritime employees. Nonetheless, I expect all supervisors and 

managers to foster a work environment where equal employment opportunities are provided to 

all employees, enabling each to reach their full potential and contribute their best efforts to the 

DLA mission. All selection decisions will be based on individual qualifications and criteria for 

the job being filled. Employees will be offered training and development to enhance their 

competencies and will be recognized for their mission related accomplishments. 

DLA Employees who exercise their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, as amended, and other related statutes will not be subjected to reprisal or retaliatory 

actions. Complaints of discrimination will be addressed fairly and expeditiously. Managers will 

be engaged toward effectively resolving any issues or concerns raised in the EEO complaint 

administrative process at the lowest level possible. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

techniques will be encouraged when viewed most applicable. Allegations of discrimination 

should be brought to the attention of supervisory personnel as soon as possible. Individuals may 

also contact the DLA Land and Maritime Office of Equal Employment and Diversity to file EEO 

complaints of discrimination within 45 days of the event. 

A copy of this policy statement will be posted on all official bulletin boards. If you have 

any questions, please contact the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity at 

(614) 692-2577 or DSN 850-2577. 

0/tiAGAIL E. ATKINS 

Brigadier General, USA 

Commanding
Recommended updated (2023–2024 Formula) COVID-19 vaccines for 

people who are NOT moderately or severely immunocompromised*† 6 MONTHS–4 YEARS

COVID-19 vaccine 

dose(s) received 

before availability 

of updated (2023–

2024 Formula) 

COVID-19 vaccines

Recommendations 

for updated 

(2023–2024 

Formula) vaccine, 

by manufacturer

5–11 YEARS

COVID-19 vaccine 

dose(s) received 

before availability 

of updated (2023–

2024 Formula) 

COVID-19 vaccines

Recommendations 

for updated 

(2023–2024 

Formula) vaccine, 

by manufacturer

12 YEARS AND OLDER

COVID-19 vaccine 

dose(s) received 

before availability 

of updated (2023–

2024 Formula) 

COVID-19 vaccines

Recommendations 

for updated 

(2023–2024 

Formula) vaccine, 

by manufacturer

Vaccinated

Vaccinated

Vaccinated

Unvaccinated

Unvaccinated

Unvaccinated

* For information about administration intervals and children who transition from age 4 years to age 5 years, see Table 1 in the Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of COVID-19 Vaccines. † COVID-19 vaccination history refers to previous receipt of doses of Original monovalent mRNA or bivalent mRNA vaccine or a combination of the two; for people ages 12 years and older, Original 

monovalent Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine doses, alone or in combination with any mRNA vaccine doses; and for people ages 18 years and older, Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine doses, alone or in 

combination with any mRNA or Original monovalent Novavax vaccine doses.

2 or more 

doses any 

Moderna

1 dose any 

Moderna

1 dose

any PfizerBioNTech

1 or more 

doses any 

mRNA vaccine

1 or more 

doses any 

mRNA vaccine

1 or more doses Novavax or 

Janssen, including in combination 

with any Original monovalent or 

bivalent COVID-19 vaccine doses

2 doses

any PfizerBioNTech

3 or more 

doses any 

PfizerBioNTech

2023–2024

Moderna

2 doses

2023–2024

PfizerBioNTech

10/13/23 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

3 doses

2023–2024

Moderna

1 dose

2023–2024

PfizerBioNTech

1 dose

2023–2024

Moderna

1 dose

2023–2024

PfizerBioNTech

2 doses

2023–2024

PfizerBioNTech

1 dose

2023–2024 OR

Moderna

1 dose

2023–2024

Moderna

1 dose

2023–2024

PfizerBioNTech

1 dose

2023–2024

PfizerBioNTech

1 dose

2023–2024

Novavax

2 doses

2023–2024

Novavax

1 dose

OR OR

OR

OR

OR OR

See page 2 for explanation of graphic on page 1.
# 16 Months
#### Marianna & Blountstown Railroad Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. W. H. May, *as*Administrator of Estate of Charley May, Deceased, *Defendant in Error*.

En Banc.

Decision Filed February 6, 1926.

Per Curiam.

— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that the damages awarded to the defendant’s estate are excessive ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Jones, 45 Fla. 407, 34 South. Rep. 246; Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Bowden, 54 Fla. 461, 45 South. Rep. 755; Secs. 4960, 4961, 4964, 4965, Rev. Gen Stats. 1920; it is, therefore, considered ordered and adjudged that if the plaintiff below shall remit $1,000.00 as of the date of the verdict, the judgment shall stand affirmed for the remainder, otherwise, the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial. Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Hayes, 67 Fla. 101, 64 South. Rep. 504; 84 Fla. 235, 93 So. 247; 20 Fla. 515.

It is so ordered.

Brown, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Strum, J. J., concur.

Buford, J., of counsel for Defendant in Error, disqualified.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00068-CR

Karl Dean Stahmann, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR2011-031, HONORABLE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellant Karl Dean Stahmann’s brief was originally due on March 30, 2015. On

August 13, 2015, we granted appellant’s third motion for extension of time and ordered appellant’s

counsel to file a brief by October 9, 2015. We cautioned counsel that no further extensions would

be granted and that if he failed to file the appellate brief by the deadline, we would refer the case to

the trial court for a hearing pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b). Appellant’s counsel has now filed

a fourth motion for extension, requesting an additional extension to January 11, 2016.

Appellant’s fourth motion for extension of time for filing his appellate brief is denied. 

We abate the cause and remand it to the trial court to hold a hearing in accordance with rule 38.8 of

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3). The trial court shall conduct a

hearing to determine whether appellant still wishes to prosecute this appeal, whether appellant is

indigent, and whether counsel has abandoned the appeal. See id. If appellant desires to appeal and
is indigent, the trial court should make appropriate orders to ensure that appellant is adequately

represented on appeal. See id. A record of the hearing, including copies of all findings and any

orders, shall be forwarded to the Clerk of this Court for filing as a supplemental record no later than

February 8, 2016. See id.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Abated and Remanded

Filed: January 8, 2016

2