alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DLA Troop Support

2019 Hall of Fame Inductee

DEBORAH A. SINNO

Deborah A. Sinno is being inducted into the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Hall of 

Fame, Class of 2019, posthumously, for her outstanding mission support from 1974 through 

2017. Throughout her federal career of 43 years, Ms. Sinno has impressed customers, leaders and 

peers with her dedication to duty and support of the warfighters.

For nearly 20 years, Ms. Sinno worked within the Subsistence supply chain’s Meals, Ready-toEat (MRE) program as a customer account specialist orchestrating, on average, the issuance of 

three million cases of MREs, valued at $300 million per year. The MRE is the “go-to” food

ration for service members, making it a highly demanded item customers constantly inquire 

about for requisition and delivery status. Ms. Sinno went above and beyond ensuring timely 

deliveries to customers, including typically tracking down truck drivers and aircraft in hard-toreach places to obtain delivery status to the exact time. She was also not only a master of 

customer service, Ms. Sinno was a tremendous logistician, determining storage sites and 

arranging airlifts when necessary.

Ms. Sinno was instrumental in DLA’s support of all of Subsistence’s MRE requisitions for 

Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi 

Freedom, including approximately 15.2 million cases of MREs valued at over $1.5 billion. She

was also on the forefront of several FEMA humanitarian relief efforts, including support to 

Hurricane Katrina in 2005, providing up to 50 million commercial meals and MREs. 

Subsistence’s military service customers were genuinely appreciative of Ms. Sinno’s efforts, and 

her lasting impact on the organization continues to reverberate through the support provided by 

the MRE team. DLA Troop Support is a better organization, thanks to Ms. Sinno’s diligence, 

tireless resilience and dedication to its mission of warfighter support.
************************** 

 * MONOGRAPH: FPS/GP 01 

 ************************** 

ITEM: Bouillon, Soup and Gravy Base, Chicken flavored (7 gm) 

ITEM SPECIFICATION: CID A A 20202 (type II, class 1, style A) 

NSN: 8935-00-082-5667 (SGB) (Ancillary) 

APPROXIMATE CALORIC VALUE: 19 kilocalories 

CHARACTERISTICS: 

APPEARANCE: 

Dehydrated: Moderate yellow or light yellow/tan with herb specs, uniform powder. 

Rehydrated: Translucent, medium tan-golden yellow broth, slight sediment, slightly 

cloudy. 

ODOR: 

Dehydrated: Mild chicken odor, hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP), onion, celery. 

Rehydrated: Chicken broth, HVP, agar, onion, sage, celery salty. 

FLAVOR: 

Chicken broth, salty, bouillon, agar, HVP, umami (MSG) cooked chicken. 

 

TEXTURE: 

Brothy, slight oily, smooth, free flowing umami. 

POSSIBLE DETERIORATIVE CHANGES: 

APPEARANCE: 

Pale or darkened, clumping of powder, doesn’t reconstitute, excessive sedimentation. 

ODOR: 

Ammonia, rancid, burnt, oxidized HVP. 

 

FLAVOR: 

Stale, bitter, oily, rancid/oxidized, burnt. 

TEXTURE: 

Caked, clumpy, lumpy powder, excessive undissolved sediment, astringent. 

 

*SPECIAL NOTES: 

 Check odor on just opened package for best evaluation of quality.
# C_2017218EN.01001702.xml

| 7.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 218/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/17

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8490 — Blackstone/CPPIB/Ascend Learning)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 218/08)

On 20 June 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8490. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8490. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
No. 09-9070.

#### Antonio L. Davis, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1021, 130 S. Ct. 1921,

176 L. Ed. 2d 391,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2503.

March 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 333 Fed. Appx. 137.
No. 09-8688.

#### Mario Alberto Garcia Holguin, aka Mario A. Garcia Olguin, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 962, 130 S. Ct. 1567,

176 L. Ed. 2d 151,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1088.

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 339 Fed. Appx. 288.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 143 (Monday, July 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20130]



[[Page 40137]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, July 19, 1998.

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission will hear oral argument on the 
following:
    1. Secretary of Labor on behalf of Bowling v. Mountain Top Trucking 
Co., Docket Nos. KENT 95-604-D, etc. (Issues include whether the judge 
erred in determining that coal truck drivers did not establish that 
they were constructively discharged and whether the judge abused his 
discretion in finding that a discriminatee's back pay award should be 
reduced because he did not mitigate his damages by requesting the 
Secretary of Labor to reopen his previously withdrawn application for 
temporary reinstatement.)

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 29, 1998.

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Closed [Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(10)].

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: It was determined by a unanimous vote of the 
Commission that the Commission consider and act upon the following in 
closed session:
    1. Secretary of Labor on behalf of Bowling v. Mountain Top Trucking 
Co., Docket Nos. KENT 95-604-D, etc. (See oral argument listing, supra, 
for issues.)
    Any person attending oral argument or an open meeting who requires 
special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign 
language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 
needs. Subject to 29 CFR Sec. 2706.150(a)(3) and Sec. 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean Ellen (202) 653-5629/(202) 
708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
Jean H. Ellen,
Chief Docket Clerk.
[FR Doc. 98-20130 Filed 7-23-98; 1:02 pm]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
No. 09-8407.

#### Rodney Miller, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 956, 130 S. Ct. 1550,

176 L. Ed. 2d 141,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1642.

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 348 Fed. Appx. 384.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), the undersigned officer of Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        | 
|Dated: November 4, 2008 |  | /s/ Scott Krenz        
|                        |  | Scott Krenz            
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 11 - 002 91 - CR

A PRI L F ELI CIA OWENS A / K / A APRIL F

. OWENS APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPIN ION 1

---------- On July 5 , 201 1 , as part of a plea

- bargain agreement, Appellant April Felicia Owens a / k / a April F. Owens pleaded guilty to theft , and the trial court sentenced h er to s even months’ confinement in state jail . Also on July 5 , 201 1 , the tri al court certified that this is a plea

- bargain case and that Appellant has no right to appeal. On July 1 4 , 201 1 , Appellant filed a notice of appeal. On July 1 5 ,

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

201 1 , we notified Appellant that the trial court’s certification , which indicat es that Appell ant ha s no right to appeal , had been filed in this court and that this appeal
could be dismissed unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by August 1 , 201 1

. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d) , 44.3

. To date, we have received no response showing grounds for continuing the appeal

. Rule 25.2(a)(2) limits the right of appeal in a plea

- bargain case to matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or to cases in which the appellant obta ined the trial court’s permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) . The trial court’s certification denied permission to appeal, but Appellant’s notice of appeal asserts that the matters to be addressed in her appeal were raised by written motion and ruled o n before trial. However, t he trial court specifically noted on the face of Appellant’s notice of appeal, “ There were

no PT moti ons with appeal issues heard.” Further, t he record shows that Appellant and her counsel signed a document en titled “ Written Wai ver of Defendant

– Joined by Attorney , ” which
state s , “I give up and waive any and all rights of appeal in this case.” The court of criminal appeals has held that a valid waiver of appeal will prevent a defendant from appealing without the consent of the trial court. Monreal v. State , 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Because Appellant has waived her right to appeal and n o one ha s responded to our July 1 5 , 2011 letter requesting3

grounds for continuing the appeal, we dismiss this appeal

. See Tex . R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM
PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: September 15, 2011
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. NRC-2009-0040] 

# AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

# ACTION:

Correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects a notice appearing in the                         **Federal Register**                         on February 9, 2009 (74 FR 6421) that informs the public of a notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment on the collection “Billing Instructions for NRC Cost Type Contracts (3150-0109).”                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Gregory Trussell, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services; telephone (301) 415-6445 or                         *infocollects.resource@nrc.gov*.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On page 6421, first column, the subject heading is corrected to read “Docket No. NRC-2009-0040” instead of “Docket No. NRC-2008-0040.” The same change should be made in the second column, last paragraph, where the docket number appears twice. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of February 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Gregory Trussell, 

NRC Clearance Officer. 

 [FR Doc. E9-4566 Filed 3-3-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
No. 09-8568.

#### Pocahontas Cooley, Petitioner v. Paul J. Kelly, et ux.

559 U.S. 1012, 130 S. Ct. 1891,

176 L. Ed. 2d 374,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2687,

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island denied.
No. 09-8550.

#### Michelle R. Walker, Petitioner v. Michigan.

559 U.S. 1011, 130 S. Ct. 1890,

176 L. Ed. 2d 373,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2689.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 10760 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:17

- cr - 60165

- JIC

- 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus JOSEPH E. WILLIAMS, Defendant

- App ellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( March 13, 2019 ) Before ED CARNES , Chief Judge, MARCUS and ROSENBAUM , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM :

Case: 18-10760 Date Filed: 03/13/2019 Page: 1 of 22 The Government’s motion to dis miss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350

– 51 (11 th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); United State s v. Grinard

- Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11 th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error).

Case: 18-10760 Date Filed: 03/13/2019 Page: 2 of 2
No. 09-926.

#### Robert Harper, Petitioner v. Tom Dart, Sheriff, Cook County, Illinois, et al.

559 U.S. 1008, 130 S. Ct. 1910,

176 L. Ed. 2d 367,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2675.

March 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 581 F.3d 511.
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




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of China Agritech, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yau-Sing Tang, the
Chief Financial Officer and Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.  
Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




November
      9, 2010
              
              /s/
      Yau Sing TangYau-Sing
      TangChief
      Financial Officer and Controller(Principal
      Financial Officer)
No. 11-7316.

#### Sean Casey, Petitioner v. Florida Department of Corrections.

565 U.S. 1163, 132 S. Ct. 1136,

181 L. Ed. 2d 989,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 815.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Opinion issued January 18, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00661-CV

———————————

IN RE FRANK C. POWELL, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Frank C. Powell, filed a petition for writ of mandamus compelling 

the trial court to hold a hearing on relator’s formal bill of exception.1 After the 

petition was filed, our Court issued an order in relator’s related appeal (Case No. 01-

23-00224-CV) abating the appeal for the trial court to conduct a hearing on relator’s 

1 The underlying case is Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Frank C. Powell, cause 

number 2021-56827, pending in the 270th District Court of Harris County, Texas, 

the Honorable Terri Holder sitting by assignment.
2

bill of exception. The trial court subsequently conducted the ordered hearing.

Accordingly, we dismiss the mandamus petition as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Landau and Rivas-Molloy.
1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 122,326

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

ISHMAEL R. RIDGE,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; DAVID L. DAHL, judge. Opinion filed October 30, 2020. 

Affirmed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6820(g) and 

(h).

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J., BUSER and WARNER, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Ishmael Ridge appeals the district court's order revoking his 

probation and imposing his underlying prison sentence. We granted Ridge's motion for 

summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 47). After 

reviewing the district court's decision, we affirm.

In December 2016, the State charged Ridge with aggravated burglary (a felony) 

and misdemeanor theft. Following negotiations, Ridge and the State entered into a plea 

agreement, whereby Ridge agreed to plead guilty to the two crimes and the State agreed 

to recommend a downward dispositional departure. In January 2018, the court imposed 

an underlying 48-month prison sentence, then granted the departure and imposed 

36 months' probation.
2

In September 2019, the district court issued a warrant against Ridge based on a 

November 2018 charge of interference with a law enforcement officer. See K.S.A. 2018 

Supp. 21-5904(a). After Ridge pleaded guilty to that charge, the court revoked his 

probation in this case. Ridge appeals. 

The decision whether to revoke probation "rests within the sound discretion of the 

district court." State v. McFeeters, 52 Kan. App. 2d 45, 47, 362 P.3d 603 (2015). We 

review a district court's decision to revoke probation for an abuse of discretion, which 

occurs when the district court's decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; is based 

on an error of law; or is based on an error of fact. State v. Lloyd, 52 Kan. App. 2d 780, 

782, 375 P.3d 1013 (2016). Ridge bears the burden to show the district court abused its 

discretion when it decided to revoke his probation. See State v. Ballou, 310 Kan. 591, 

615, 448 P.3d 479 (2019).

Ridge acknowledges that Kansas law permits a district court to revoke a person's 

probation when he or she commits a new felony offense—which Ridge admits he did 

here. See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3716(c)(7)(C); K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716(c)(8)(A).

Under these facts, the district court had discretion to revoke Ridge's probation and 

impose his underlying sentence instead of taking other remedial action. The court did not 

abuse its discretion when it did so.

Affirmed.
No. 09-8572.

#### Richard Ernest Anaya, Petitioner v. California.

559 U.S. 1012, 130 S. Ct. 1893,

176 L. Ed. 2d 374,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2737.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
No. 09-8172.

#### Sean Scott, Petitioner v. Maryland.

559 U.S. 976, 130 S. Ct. 1695,

176 L. Ed. 2d 189,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2081.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.

Same case below, 186 Md. App. 739.
Exhibit 32.1



Sigmarenopro, Inc.

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

Section 906 Certifications





In connection with the
Annual Report of Sigmarenopro, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ending June 30, 2019 (the “Report”)
I, Omar Aamar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:



(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 April 16, 2020.



|Sigmarenopro, Inc.                                                                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                        
|By: /s/ Omar Aamar                                                                                                      
|Omar Aamar,                                                                                                             
|Chief Executive
    Officer, (principal executive officer, principal accounting officer and principal financial officer)



This certification accompanies
the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
No. 09-8443.

#### Curtis Jerome Lemon, Petitioner v. South Carolina, et al.

559 U.S. 981, 130 S. Ct. 1709,

176 L. Ed. 2d 196,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2084.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 339 Fed. Appx. 298.