alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeWorking With DLAApplicationsDetails

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# MILSINQ - MILSBILLS INQUIRY

Access MILSINQ **Access MILSINQ: https://home.daas.dla.mil/sar

MILSBILLS INQUIRY (MILSINQ) provides both local and remote users the capability to interrogate/display Interfund Bills (MILSBILLS) and Materiel Obligation Validation (MOV) batches and generate retransmittal requests on-line. This query system provides both local and remote users the capability to query and display Interfund Bills (MILSBILLS) and Materiel Obligation Validation (MOV) files and generate retransmit requests on-line. The MOV System contains all inquiry batches and AE status documents submitted during the recent quarter, retaining the data for 90 days. MILSBILLS data is stored for 1 year and FMS bills are stored for 2 years.

----

## Assistance and Contact Information

                                  - Contact the following for DoD MILSINQ System issues and help:
                                  - DAAS Information Center   Email:      milsinqhelp@dla.mil   Commercial:      (614) 692-6672
                                  - DSN:      (312) 850-667

MILSBILLS INQUIRYMILSINQDAAS
No. 09-916.

No. 09-917.

No. 09-918.

No. 09-919.

No. 09-8885.

#### Prenka Ivezaj, Petitioner v. United States. Nardino Colotti, Petitioner v. United States. Alex Rudaj, Petitioner v. United States. Nikola Dedaj, Petitioner v. United States. Ljusa Nuculovic, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 998, 130 S. Ct. 1749,

176 L. Ed. 2d 223,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2270.

March 8, 2010.

Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

Same cases below, 568 F.3d 88 and 336 Fed. Appx. 6.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. §1350



In connection with the quarterly report of Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies
Worldwide, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William B. Olson, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the
Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This Certification has not been, and
shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.





|Date: September 11, 2003 |  |  |  | 
|------------------------ |  |  |  | 
|                         |  |  | 
|                         |  |  |  | 
|                         |  |  |  |
No. 11-7456.

#### Joshua Wayne Shattuck, Petitioner v. M. S. Evans, Warden.

565 U.S. 1166, 132 S. Ct. 1114,

181 L. Ed. 2d 995,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 792.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000835759
<NAME> ASTROTECH INTER. CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             515
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,666
<ALLOWANCES>                                       176
<INVENTORY>                                      4,622
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,998
<PP&E>                                          36,187
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,082
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,276
<BONDS>                                         17,544
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,954
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,364
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               122,190
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   91,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,078
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,331
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,530
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,520
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,010
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,010
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 473 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 473

To amend title 23, United States Code, to provide grant eligibility for 
a State that adopts a program for the impoundment of vehicles operated 
            by persons while under the influence of alcohol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2005

 Mr. LoBiondo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 23, United States Code, to provide grant eligibility for 
a State that adopts a program for the impoundment of vehicles operated 
            by persons while under the influence of alcohol.

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

SECTION 1. ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING COUNTERMEASURES.

    Section 410(b)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
                    ``(H) Program for impoundment of vehicles.--A 
                program to impound a vehicle operated by a person who 
                is arrested for operating the vehicle while under the 
                influence of alcohol.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit      32.2**

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                February 14, 2006 | By:                  /s/                Thomas Stankovich  |
|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    | Thomas                Stankovich                                          |
|                                    | Chief                Financial Officer                                    |
|                                    |                                                                      |
407 P.2d 416

#### STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Danny GARRETT, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 44.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

Nov. 9, 1965.

Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Richard J. Riley, Cochise County Atty., by Lyle R. Allen, Deputy County Atty., Bisbee, for appellee.

Robert J. Snyder, Jr., Sierra Vista, for appellant.

KRUCKER, Chief Judge.

An information was filed in the Superior Court of Cochise County on June 3, 1965, charging the defendant, appellant herein, with the crime of burglary, first degree, in violátion' of A.R.S. § 13-302.

Defendant was represented by counsel, entered a plea .of guilty on June 8, 1965, and on June 29, 1965, was sentenced to the Arizona State Prison. Notice of appeal was filed and counsel was appointed to represent the appellant, and a copy of the transcripts and record on appeal were ordered furnished at county expense.

On October 26, 1965, counsel for appellant filed a motion in this Court submitting the record to the Court for fundamental error, stating that the appellant entered a plea of guilty believing that he would re*228ceive suspension of imposition of sentence. Counsel further stated that there is no foundation whatsoever to substantiate defendant’s belief or presumption that probation would be granted.

Counsel further stated in the motion or pleading filed in this Court that he was unable to find anything in the record upon which to base an appeal.

This Court has examined the record and can find no error on the part of the lower court or in any phase of the proceedings.

Therefore, in accordance with the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court of this State and by this Court, State v. Burrell, 96 Ariz. 233, 393 P.2d 921 (1964), and Rugg v. Burr, 1 Ariz.App. 488, 404 P.2d 832 (1965), the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

HATHAWAY and MOLLOY, JJ., concurring.
Hg data 

12/07/2011 03:48 PM 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Hi Bob, 

 

Is there a field in the attached spreadsheet that indicates if a unit was 

part of the best performing 15% or one of the randomly selected units 

from the ICR? If not, do you have a list of those facilities (preferably 

including the Facility ID)? 

 

Also, the sheet for the existing not-low BTU Hg coal floor indicates that 

4 units were considered outliers for setting the floors. What were the 4 

outliers? How were they selected? – it’s difficult to understand the 

Gross Outlier test in the floor spreadsheet (which it seems is based on 

the maximum value for the floors being 100 times great than the minimum 

value, but I’m not sure). 

 

 

Regards, 

Cortney 

 

Partii_iii_hg.xls
No. 09-8704.

#### Rachel Kaplan, Petitioner v. Mark Mulligan, et al.

559 U.S. 984, 130 S. Ct. 1718,

176 L. Ed. 2d 200,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1955.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts denied.

Same case below, 74 Mass. App. 1104, 903 N.E.2d 1144.
No. 11M43.

#### Paul A. Slough, Evan S. Liberty, Dustin L. Heard, and Donald W. Ball, Petitioners v. United States.

565 U.S. 1032, 132 S. Ct. 603,

181 L. Ed. 2d 419,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8241.

November 14, 2011.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.

Same case below, 395 U.S. App. D.C. 178, 641 F.3d 544.
exhibit10jj.htm











Exhibit 10(jj)




 


NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.


NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION SUMMARY


(Effective January 1, 2011)


 








	
Annual Retainer


     (payable quarterly in common stock or cash)


 

	
$50,000


	
Board or Committee meeting fee


 

	
$2,000/meeting


	
Audit Committee Chair retainer (annual)


     (payable quarterly)


 

	
$15,000


	
Other Committee Chair retainer (annual)


     (payable quarterly)


 

	
$10,000


	
Annual grant of restricted stock


     (under 2007 Non-Employee Directors Stock Plan)

	
that number of shares determined by dividing $110,000 by closing price of NextEra Energy common stock on effective date of grant (rounded up to the nearest 10 shares)


 


	
Miscellaneous

	
- Travel and Accident Insurance (including spouse coverage)


 


	  	
- Certain directors accrue dividends and interest on the phantom stock units granted to them upon the termination of the Non-Employee Director Retirement Plan in 1996


 


	  	
- Travel and related expenses while on Board business, and actual administrative or similar expenses incurred for Board or Committee business, are paid or reimbursed by the Company  Directors may travel on Company aircraft in accordance with the Company’s Aviation Policy (primarily to or from Board meetings and while on Board business; in limited circumstances for other reasons if the Company would incur little if any incremental cost, space is available and the aircraft is already in use for another authorized purpose - may be accompanied by immediate family members when space is available).


 


	  	
- Directors may participate in the Company’s Deferred Compensation Plan.


 


	  	
- Directors may participate in the Company’s matching gift program, which matches gifts to educational institutions to a maximum of $10,000 per donor.
406 P.2d 245

#### STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. David Anthony MORENO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 46.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

Oct. 7, 1965.

*44Darrel F. Smith, Atty. Gen., by Gary K. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Robert A. Lukas, Phoenix, for appellant.

STEVENS, Chief Judge.

Appellant was charged with corruption of witness in violation of A.R.S. § 13-289. He plead not guilty. He was tried and convicted by a jury and was sentenced for a term of not less than four nor more than five years. During the trial he was represented by appointed counsel.

The appellant had previously been sentenced to serve a term of one year in the Maricopa County Jail. While serving his time in the County Jail he was made a trustee, giving him access to the various cell blocks.

During the latter part of November, 1964, the State brought Hector J. Osorio, a prisoner at the Arizona State Prison at Florence, Arizona, to the Maricopa County Jail to testify as a witness for the State in a criminal action.

On the 16th day of December, 1964, appellant threw a threatening note into Osorio’s cell on the fourth floor of the County Jail.

Appellant filed his notice of appeal in propria persona and counsel, who represented him during the trial, was appointed by the trial court to handle this appeal. Throughout the trial and its preparation defendant was represented by competent counsel who diligently prepared and pursued the appellant’s defense. Counsel advised this Court by written communication that he had examined the record and transcript of evidence and was unable to find grounds upon which an appeal could be based. On examination of the record, we find no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

CAMERON and DONOFRIO, JJ., concurring.
No. 08-1553.

No. 08-1554.

#### Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Regal-Beloit Corporation, et al. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Petitioner v. Regal-Beloit Corporation, et al.

559 U.S. 989, 130 S. Ct. 1753,

176 L. Ed. 2d 210,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2220.

March 8, 2010.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
No. 09-8588.

#### Jerome Wallace, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

559 U.S. 1013, 130 S. Ct. 1894,

176 L. Ed. 2d 375,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2671.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-22-0000288

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

PHILLIP LACY; CECILIA VESSEL, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

JACOB A. DOWD; MELANIE Y. DOWD, Defendants-Appellants

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

WAILUKU DIVISON

(CASE NO. 2DRC-22-0000333)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Nakasone and Chan, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears that:

(1) The statement of jurisdiction and opening brief

were due on or before May 23, 2022, and June 20, 2022,

respectively;

(2) Defendants-Appellants Jacob A. Dowd and Melanie Y.

Dowd (collectively, the Dowds) failed to file either document, or

request an extension of time;

(3) On June 22, 2022, the appellate clerk entered a

default notice informing the Dowds that the time for filing the

statement of jurisdiction and opening brief had expired, the

matter would be called to the court's attention on July 5, 2022,

for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of the

appeal, under Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules 12.1(e)

and 30, and the Dowds could request relief from default by

motion; and 

(4) The Dowds have not taken any further action in this

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-22-0000288

27-SEP-2022

07:49 AM

Dkt. 30 ODSD
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is

dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 27, 2022.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan

Associate Judge 

2
No. 09-9595.

#### David Carroll, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1081, 130 S. Ct. 2124,

176 L. Ed. 2d 747,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3265.

April 19, 2010.

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

Same case below, 328 Fed. Appx. 172.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
Consolidated  Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2000, and the Consolidated  Statement
of Operations  for the quarter  ended June 30, 2000 of Mission West  Properties,
Inc., and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                          0001067419
<NAME>                                         Mission West Properties, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         6,777
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         795,532
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (26,061)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 787,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       17
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,187
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   787,511
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               27,472
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,468
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,069
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,380
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,930
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,930
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,930
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .17



</TABLE>
No. 09-8494.

#### Shannon Ray Fulbright, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 958, 130 S. Ct. 1556,

176 L. Ed. 2d 144,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1427.

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 348 Fed. Appx. 949.