alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Clear All

        14 February 2024    

                    50 Years of Building and Restoring Maritime Capabilities: Celebrating the Underwater Construction Teams Anniversary                 
                The Navy’s Underwater Construction Teams (UCT) One and Two will celebrate half a century of subsurface construction progress and prowess Feb. 15.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
# CE2011161EN.01025702.xml

| 31.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 161/257 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 161/257

---

Tuesday 18 May 2010Specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (amendment of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006) ***I

P7_TA(2010)0170

European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 May 2010 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (COM(2009)0510 – C7-0255/2009 – 2009/0138(COD))

2011/C 161 E/32

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2009)0510),

having regard to Articles 36 and 37 and Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0255/2009),

having regard to the Commission Communication to Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures’ (COM(2009)0665),

having regard to Article 294(3) and Article 42, Article 43(2) and Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 17 March 2010 (1),

1

having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0054/2010),

| 1. | Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

| 2. | Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

---

(1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal.

1

---

Tuesday 18 May 2010P7_TC1-COD(2009)0138

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 18 May 2010 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 641/2010.)

---
Case 1:07-cv-04414-AKH Document 2 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04414-AKH Document 2 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
ALD

- 111

- E NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 13

- 4792

___________ IN RE: DIMITRIOS MITCH FATOUROS , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ( Related to D.C. Civil No. 2:13

- cv - 04639 ) District Judge: Honorable Claire C. Cecchi

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

December 27, 2013 Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR. , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : January 10, 2014 )

_________ O P I N I O N

_________ PER CURIAM Dimitrios Fatouros petitions this Court for a writ of mandamu s directing the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to terminate a motion to dismiss that is pending in the District Court. For the reasons that follow, we will deny Fatouros’s mandamus petition and accompanying counsel motion.2 I. In July 2013, Fatouros filed a complaint pro se against Emmanuel Lambrakis, Artemios Sorras, and ten John Doe defendants, raising claims of libel, slander, and defamation. Sorras filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is pending in the District Court. Thereafter, the District Court ordered Fatouros to file any response to the motion by January 14, 2014. Fatouros argues that because Sorras is not a United States citizen or resident, has not yet been served with a summons, and failed t o provide contact information pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a), we should issue a writ of mandamus requiring the District Court to terminate Sorras’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Fatouros has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel.
II. Mand amus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Fatouros must demonstrate that “(1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) [his] right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry , 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Fatouros cannot make such a showi ng because he has other adequate means to challenge Sorras’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court has not even ruled on the motion; Fatouros can thus raise in response to the motion the same arguments he raises in his mandamus petition. Mo reover, Fatouros may seek appellate3

review if the pending motion to dismiss is ultimately granted. See In re Chambers Dev.
Co. , 148 F.3d 214, 223 (3d Cir. 1998) (“ [ A ] writ of mandamus should not be issued where relief may be obtained through an ordinary a ppeal.”) . Thus, mandamus is not appropriate. Accordingly, because Fatouros cannot demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying a writ of mandamus, we will deny his petition. We will deny the motion for appointment of counsel as moot.
##### 



2003
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2007Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    25.5
    
    
    $
    22.8
    
    
    $
    35.7
    
    
    $
    54.2
    
    
    $
    48.7Amortization of debt issuance costs
    
    
    1.3
    
    
    
    0.8
    
    
    
    0.9
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.1Interest capitalized during period
    
    
    0.3
    
    
    
    0.3
    
    
    
    0.5
    
    
    
    0.8
    
    
    
    0.8Portion of rent expense representative of
interest
    
    
    1.9
    
    
    
    1.7
    
    
    
    1.8
    
    
    
    1.7
    
    
    
    1.4FIXED CHARGES
    
    $
    29.0
    
    
    $
    25.6
    
    
    $
    38.9
    
    
    $
    58.1
    
    
    $
    52.0Earnings:Pretax income from continuing operations
and before the cumulative effect of a change in
accounting principle
    
    $
    47.7
    
    
    $
    10.5
    
    
    $
    19.9
    
    
    $
    38.6
    
    
    $
    127.0Add: Loss from unconsolidated joint venture
    
    
    0.4
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.0
    
    
    
    0.0
    
    
    
    0.0Less: Income from unconsolidated joint venture
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (0.1
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (1.9
    )
    
    
    (1.1
    )Fixed charges
    
    
    29.0
    
    
    
    25.6
    
    
    
    38.9
    
    
    
    58.1
    
    
    
    52.0Interest capitalized during period
    
    
    (0.3
    )
    
    
    (0.3
    )
    
    
    (0.5
    )
    
    
    (0.8
    )
    
    
    (0.8
    )Amortization of interest capitalized
    
    
    0.9
    
    
    
    0.7
    
    
    
    0.7
    
    
    
    0.7
    
    
    
    0.7Earnings
    
    $
    77.7
    
    
    $
    36.4
    
    
    $
    60.0
    
    
    $
    94.7
    
    
    $
    177.8Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    2.68
    
    
    
    1.42
    
    
    
    1.54
    
    
    
    1.63
    
    
    
    3.42
solarmax_ex1075.htm

EXHIBIT 10.75
 
December 17, 2019
 
SolarMax Technology, Inc.
3080 12th Street
Riverside, California 92507
 
Ladies and Gentlemen:
 
Reference is made to the agreement dated March , 2019, pursuant to which I exchanged __________ the shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share (“Common Stock”), of SolarMax Technology, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) represented by a Stock Grant for (i) an option to purchase __________ shares of Common Stock and (ii) a cash payment of $__________ , which was to have been paid by December 15, 2019. This letter will confirm my prior advice to you that I agree that the date by which the cash payment is to be made to me has been extended to March 31, 2020.
 
Very truly yours,
 
____________________________________ 
Name:
#                                                                         NAS Sigonella Welcomes First MQ-4C Triton                                                                     

##### by Lt. j.g. Andrea Perez, Naval Air Station Sigonella Public Affairs 

31 March 2024
                The first MQ-4C Triton arrived to Naval Air Station (NAS) Sigonella, March 30, 2024. The MQ-4C’s arrival to the U.S. Sixth Fleet area of operations marks the second forward-deployed detachment for VUP-19.                            Triton Arrives in Sigonella                            The first MQ-4C Triton arrived to Naval Air Station (NAS) Sigonella, March 30, 2024. The MQ-4C’s arrival to the U.S. Sixth Fleet area of operations marks the second forward-deployed detachment for VUP-19.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Courtesy PhotoVIRIN: 240331-N-NO901-1001NAVAL AIR STATION SIGONELLA, Italy - The first MQ-4C Triton arrived to Naval Air Station (NAS) Sigonella, March 30, 2024.

The MQ-4C’s arrival to the U.S. Sixth Fleet area of operations marks the second forward-deployed detachment for VUP-19.  A total of three detachments are planned when the program is fully operational.  Deployments like this enhance U.S. Navy interoperability with NATO Allies and partners.

“The addition of the MQ-4C Triton, right here in Sigonella, is another milestone in the successful development of the Triton program,” said Capt. Aaron Shoemaker, Commanding Officer, NAS Sigonella. “We are proud to support VUP-19 [Unmanned Patrol Squadron (VUP) 19] as they integrate with the Fleet to expand the roles of unmanned aircraft systems operations in our region and beyond.”

 

The MQ-4C Triton is the Navy’s newest Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Maritime Patrol asset and augments the capabilities of the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft.

To prepare for the arrival of the Triton in Italy, VUP-19 “Big Red” held a ceremony to celebrate the deployment and the opening of a new Triton hangar at NAS Sigonella, March 2.  

VUP-19, homeported in Florida at Naval Air Station Jacksonville and Naval Station Mayport, boasts more than 300 Sailors and officers from various aviation ratings and officer communities who maintain and operate the Triton around the world. Aircrew gather and process surveillance information utilizing data fusion tools that integrate sensor data from multiple aircraft into a comprehensive networked picture to further assist in building an accurate threat representation.

VUP-19 achieved initial operation capability in September 2023 during its deployment to Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.

Naval Air Station Sigonella provides consolidated operational, command and control, administrative, logistical and advanced logistical support to U.S. and other NATO forces. The installation’s strategic location enables U.S., allied, and partner nation forces to deploy and respond as required, ensuring security and stability in Europe, Africa and Central Command.For more news and information from NAS Sigonella, visit https://cnreurafcent.cnic.navy.mil/Installations/NAS-Sigonella/ or https://www.facebook.com/nassigonella/.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6713

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL DWIGHT BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-482-WDQ; CA-03-3270-WDQ) Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: July 2, 2004 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Dwight Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Brown cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appealability will not issue absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A habeas appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case 1:07-cv-01509-AKH Document 14-2 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CYNTHIA LOUISE BARTLETT-McNAMARA,

Appellant,

v.

PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL, LLC; PRETIUM PARTNERS, LLC; PROGRESS 

RESIDENTIAL BORROWER 3 LLC; and PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL 

PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC,

Appellees.

No. 2D2022-3029

June 21, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Paul L. Huey, 

Judge.

Michael Valen of Rubenstein Law, P.A., Miami, and Luis G. Figueroa 

(substituted as counsel of record) and Adam Richardson of Burlington & 

Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.

Meredith Delcamp, Erik R. Matheny, S. Elizabeth King, and Alyssa L. 

Cory of Shutts & Bowen LLP, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior publication.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1997
<CASH>                                      19,638,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               62,289,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,053,000
<INVENTORY>                                 95,096,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           177,683,000
<PP&E>                                     205,008,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              40,258,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             449,963,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       63,174,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       147,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 154,490,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               449,963,000
<SALES>                                    534,261,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           534,261,000
<CGS>                                      402,759,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              402,759,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            69,928,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               422,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          19,719,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             41,433,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                15,809,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         25,624,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                25,624,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.70
        

</TABLE>
#### Theodore J. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-15483.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2013.*

Filed May 23, 2013.

Theodore J. Thompson, Little Rock, AR, pro se.

Jeffrey I. Pitegoff, Esquire, Pitegoff Law Office, Arthur Tuverson, John Kirk, Esquire, Law Office of Arthur Tuverson, Eric K. Stryker, Esquire, Senior, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Anthony Dean Lauria, Esquire, Senior Trial, Lauria Tokunaga Gates & Linn LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Theodore J. Thompson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the imposition of discovery sanctions. *Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills,*482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing terminating sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) based on Thompson’s willful and repeated violations of the court’s discovery orders after the court repeatedly warned Thompson of the possibility of terminating sanctions. *See id.*(discussing factors for evaluating terminating sanctions); *Jorgensen v. Cassiday,*320 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that “[djisobedient conduct not shown to be outside the control of the litigant is sufficient to demonstrate willfulness,” and that district court’s finding of willfulness is reviewed for clear error).

Thompson’s contentions that the district court failed to consider his proposed third amended complaint prior to dismissal, his deposition failed to comply with the requirements of 7 C.F.R. § 1.148, the district court held him to an improper standard, and the district court erred in dismissing all claims against all defendants, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 13.1

FIVE YEAR SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
Year ended September 30,                                             1997      1996      1995      1994       1993
(Millions of dollars except per share amounts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>        <C>
Operations
Revenues                                                           $  435    $  422    $  378    $  355     $  329
                                                                         
Cash provided from operations                                         269       272       237       233        196
                                                                         
Capital expenditures (including equipment acquired 
  under operating leases)/(1)/                                        249       210       699       236        410
                                                                         
Income before income taxes                                             71        69        98        98         72
                                                                         
Net income                                                             43        41        57        58         38/(2)/
 
Per Share Information
Fully diluted earnings per share                                   $ 2.77    $ 2.56    $ 3.39    $ 3.38      $2.09/(2)/
 
Dividends declared per share                                       $  .78    $  .70    $  .62    $  .54      $ .46
 
Financial Position
Total assets                                                       $1,585    $1,537    $1,516    $1,005      $ 858
 
Total debt and redeemable preferred stock                             892       892       898       444        388
 
Total stockholders' equity                                            360       342       359       331        280
</TABLE> 

/(1)/Includes capital expenditures for acquisitions. See Note 2 of the Notes to
     Consolidated Financial Statements.

/(2)/Includes the effect of the Revenue Reconciliation Bill of 1993 which raised
     the federal corporate tax rate from 34% to 35%. The Company restated the
     deferred tax liabilities and assets to reflect the higher rate, recording
     additional tax expense of approximately $5 million.
##### 



Exhibit 23
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accountants We have issued our report
dated February 12, 2004 (except for the last paragraph of
Note G, as to which the date is February 11, 2005), accompanying the consolidated financial
statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Applica Incorporated on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2003. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of the
aforementioned report in the Registration Statements of Applica Incorporated on Form S-3 (File No.
33-26955, effective February 8, 1989), Form S-8 (File No. 33-36424, effective on August 17, 1990),
Form S-8 (File No. 33-58574, effective February 22, 1993), Form S-3 (File No. 333-06759, effective
June 25, 1996), Form S-8 (File No. 333-52389, effective May 12, 1998), Form S-8 (File No.
333-52383, effective May 12, 1998), Form S-8 (File No. 333-86507, effective August 3, 1999), Form
S-8 (File No. 333-39986, effective June 23, 2000) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-39990, effective June
23, 2000). /s/ Grant Thornton LLP Miami, Florida
March 9, 2005