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 POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Past Conflicts             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns             
  -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Livestreams             
  -  Year In Review             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  Volunteer		 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.61 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### William MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marie MACAJOUX, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner N.Y. City, Kings County Hospital, Pepi Dakou, Dr., Tudor, Dr., Johnson, Dr., Thomas Scalea, M.D., Shih, Dr., Adler, Dr., Klien, Dr., Ellowitz, Dr., Kotzen, Dr., Kelly, Dr., Chin, Dr., Shelby, Dr., Samuel, Dr., Kraus, Dr., Vertil, Dr., McRae, Dr., Hahn, Investigator, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-2007.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 28, 2005.

William Montgomery, Attica, New York (on submission), for Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se.

*371Ronald R. Sternberg, Senior Assistant Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, New York (on submission), for Defendants-Appellees.

Present: NEWMAN, WESLEY, and HALL, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

William Montgomery appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The court held Montgomery’s claims were barred by *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and, in the alternative, the relevant statutes of limitations. Applying *de novo*review, *see Liner v. Goord,*196 F.3d 132, 134 (2d Cir.1999), we affirm.

Montgomery raises three main arguments on appeal. First, he claims that § 1915A does not apply because he paid a filing fee. However, § 1915A “applies] to all civil complaints brought by prisoners against governmental officials or entities regardless of whether the prisoner has paid [a] filing fee.” *Carr v. Dvorin,*171 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir.1999) (per curiam). Second, Montgomery contends that *Heck*does not apply because his complaint does not allege malicious prosecution. The principle of *Heck,*however, applies equally to Montgomery’s claims because “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” *Heck,*512 U.S. at 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364; *see Channer v. Mitchell,*43 F.3d 786, 787 (2d Cir.1994) (per curiam). Finally, Montgomery argues that the district court erred in finding his claims time-barred. Although this question is moot in light of the applicability of *Heck,*we agree with the district court’s conclusion and reasoning. We find the remainder of Montgomery’s arguments lack merit.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
NLRA는 고용주와 함께 단체로 조직하고 교섭할 수 있는 권리와 보호를 받는 다른 공동 

활동에 참여할 피고용인의 권리를 보장합니다. NLRA*의 적용을 받는 피고용인은 특정 

유형의 고용주 및 노동 조합의 위법 행위로부터 보호를 받습니다. 본 고시는 귀하의 권

리 그리고 NLRA에 따른 고용주와 노동 조합의 의무에 관한 일반적인 정보를 제공합니

다. 특정 작업장에서 적용될 수 있는 특정 권리에 대해 질문이 있는 경우 아래에 제공된 

연락처 정보를 사용하여 NLRA에 따라 불만 사항을 조사하고 해결하는 연방 기관인 국

가 노동 관계위원회(NLR)에 문의하십시오.

NLRA에 따르면 귀하에게 다음

과 같은 권리가 주어집니다.

• 임금, 근무 시간 및 기타 고용 조

건에 관해 고용주와 협상할 노동 

조합을 조직합니다.

• 노동 조합을 결성, 가입 또는 지원

합니다.

• 임금, 수당, 근무 시간 및 기타 근

로 조건을 정하는 고용주와의 계

약을 위해 피고용인 자신이 선택

한 대표를 통해 집단적으로 교섭

합니다.

• 동료나 노동 조합과 함께 고용이

나 노동 조합 조직의 조건에 대해 

토론합니다.

피고용인 권리

국가 노동 관계법(NLRA)에 의거

NLRA에 따르면 고용주와 협상

할 때 노조 또는 귀하를 대표하

는 노조가 다음을 수행하는 것

은 불법입니다.

• 근로자가 자신을 대표할 조합을 

선택할 경우 작업장을 폐쇄하겠다

고 위협합니다.

• 승진, 임금 인상 또는 기타 혜택을 

약속하거나 부여하여 조합의 지원

을 저해하거나 장려합니다.

• 특별한 경우를 제외하고 직장에서 

조합모자, 버튼, 티셔츠, 핀을 착용

하는 것을 금지합니다.

• 평화적인 노조 활동과 집회를 몰

래 촬영 또는 녹화하거나 그렇게 

하는 척합니다.

NLRA에 따르면 고용주가 다음

을 수행하는 것은 불법입니다:

• 귀하에게 근무 전이나 퇴근 후, 쉬

는 시간 등 비근무 시간에 조합 가

입 요청을 금지하거나, 작업 시간

이 아닌 경우 주차장이나 휴게실과 

같은 비업무 구역에서 조합 문서를 

배포할 수 없도록 금지합니다.

• 귀하의 조합 지원이나 활동에 대해 

귀하가 그 활동에 참여하지 못하게 

하는 방식으로 질문합니다.

• 귀하가 노조에 가입하거나 지원하

기 때문에, 상호 지원 및 보호를 위

해 공동의 활동에 참여하기 때문에 

또는 그러한 활동에 참여하지 않기

로 선택했기 때문에 귀하를 해고, 
• 고용주나 정부 기관에 직접 업무 

관련 불만을 제기하고 조합의 도

움을 구하는 등, 한 명 이상의 동료

와 함께 자신의 근무 환경을 개선

하기 위한 조치를 취합니다.

• 파업이나 피켓팅의 목적이나 수단

에 따라 파업하고 피켓 시위를 합

니다.

• 조합에 가입하거나 탈퇴하는 것을 

포함하여 어떠한 활동도 하지 않

을 것을 선택합니다.

불법 행위는 허용되지 않습니다. 귀하의 권

리 또는 타인의 권리가 침해 당했다고 생각

하는 경우, 일반적으로 불법 활동으로부터

6개월 이내에 귀하의 권리를 보호하기 위

해 신속하게 NLRB에 연락해야 합니다. 고용

주나 다른 사람에게 문의하지 않고 위반 가

능성을 문의할 수 있습니다. 요금은 누구든

지 청구할 수 있으며 위반의 직접적인 영

향을 받는 직원만이 청구할 필요는 없습니

다. NLRB는 고용주에게 법률 위반으로 해고

된 노동자를 다시 고용하도록 그리고 상실

한 임금 및 수당을 지불하도록 명령할 수 있

으며 고용주 또는 노동 조합에 법률 위반을 

중지하도록 명령할 수 있습니다. 피고용인은 

기관의 웹사이트에서 찾을 수 있는 가장 가

까운 지역 NLRB 사무소의 도움을 구해야 합

니다. www.nlrb.gov.

만약 귀하와 동료들이 귀하의 단체 교섭 대표로 활

동하도록 노조를 선택한다면, 고용주와 노동 조합은 

귀하의 고용 조건을 정하는 서면의 구속력 있는 합

의에 도달하기 위해 진정성 있는 노력과 선의로 협

상해야 합니다. 노동 조합은 협상과 합의 이행에 있

어 귀하를 공정하게 대변해야 합니다.

NLRB에 무료 전화 1-844-762-NLRB(6572)

번으로 연락하셔도 됩니다. 한국어 지원도 

이용하실 수 있습니다. 청각 장애가 

있으신 분은 NLRB 담당자에게 이메일 

relay.service@nlrb.gov 로 문의하시기 

바랍니다. NLRB 담당자가 전화 중계 

서비스를 예약하는 방법을 이메일로 

안내해 드립니다.

*국가 노동 관계법은 대부분의 민간 부문 고용주를 

대상으로 합니다. NLRA에 따른 적용범위에서 제외

되는 자는 공공 부문 직원, 농업 및 가정 근로자, 독

립 계약자, 부모 또는 배우자가 고용한 근로자, 철도 

노동법에 적용되는 항공 및 철도 운송 회사 직원 그

리고 감독관입니다 (NLRA 위반을 거부하여 차별을 

받은 감독관은 적용 대상이 될 수 있습니다).

• 귀하가 노조에 가입했는지 또는 

지지했는지에 따라 귀하에게 불리

한 조치를 취합니다.

강등 또는 이전시키거나, 근무 시

간을 줄이거나, 교대 근무 시간을 

바꾸거나, 불리한 조치를 취하거

나, 이러한 조치들을 취하겠다고 

위협합니다.

• 노조를 지지하지 않는다면 직장

을 잃을 것이라고 귀하에게 위협

합니다.

• 귀하가 노조 간부를 비난했거나 

노조원이 아니기 때문에 불만을 

처리하는 것을 거부합니다.

• 직업소개소에서 직업을 소개할 때 

차별적 기준이나 절차를 이용하거

나 유지합니다.

• 귀하의 노조 관련 활동 때문에 고

용주가 귀하를 차별하도록 만들거

나 시도합니다.

이것은 공식적인 정부 고시이므로어느 누구도 훼손해서는 안됩니다. Technical Revision Date: 05/02/22

자세히 알아보기 위해 스캔
#### STATE v. BELL

No. 14 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 607.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 August 1977. Appeal dismissed ex mero motu for lack of substantial constitutional question 23 August 1977.
# C_2007314EN.01002201.xml

| 22.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/22

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4848 — Basell/Lyondell)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 314/03)

On 26 October 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32007M4848. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4848. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
on Form S-3 (No. 333-97783, 333-72128, 333-61136, and 333-32684) and
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-106238, 333-80807, 333-56212,
333-32223, 333-11883, 33-35549, 33-35719, 33-72502, Post-Effective Amendment No.
1 to Registration Statement No. 333-90768, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to
Registration Statement No. 2-97542, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to
Registration Statement No. 2-78926, and Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to
Registration Statement No. 2-78925) of our reports dated March 12, 2004
(which reports express unqualified opinions and include an explanatory paragraph
concerning the adoption of a new accounting principle in 2002) appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Thoratec Corporation for the year ended January 3,
2004.

/s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Francisco, California
March 17, 2004

                                       78
Case 1:07-cv-03350-SAS Document 30 Filed 05/12/2008 Page 1 of 1
#### LATHAN v. BD. OF COMMISSIONERS

No. 323 PC

Case below: 47 NC App 357

Petition be defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 16 September 1980.
Case 1:07-cv-03323-RWS Document 3 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 1 of 1
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 POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.03 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 540 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to make 

permanent the summer food service pilot project for rural areas of 

Pennsylvania and apply it to rural areas of every State. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2009 

Mr. PLATTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 

Act to make permanent the summer food service pilot 

project for rural areas of Pennsylvania and apply it 

to rural areas of every State. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Summer Food Service 

5 Rural Expansion Act’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 540 IH

1 SEC. 2. SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PILOT PROGRAM FOR 

2 RURAL AREAS OF PENNSYLVANIA MADE PER3 MANENT AND APPLIED TO RURAL AREAS OF 

4 EVERY STATE. 

5 Section 13(a)(9) of the Richard B. Russell National 

6 School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1761(a)(9)) is amended— 

7 (1) in the paragraph heading by striking ‘‘EX8 EMPTION’’ and inserting ‘‘APPLICABILITY TO RURAL

9 AREAS’’; and 

10 (2) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘For each 

11 of calendar years 2005 and 2006 in rural areas of 

12 the State of Pennsylvania’’ and inserting ‘‘For cal13 endar year 2009 and each calendar year thereafter, 

14 in rural areas of a State’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-19-00170-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 67th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 067-306116-19

AND

CRUZ VENZOR AND JUANA MUNOZ, Appellants

V.

AMG BT NOTE ONE, LLC AND AUGUST REI HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellees
2

___________________________

No. 02-19-00177-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 67th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 067-297732-18

Before Womack J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Wallach, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

CRUZ VENZOR AND JUANA MUNOZ, Appellants

V.

AMG BT NOTE ONE, LLC, Appellee
3

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

This court has previously dismissed these now-consolidated appeals in separate

opinions issued on July 30, 2019. Venzor v. AMG BT Note One, LLC, No. 02-19-

00170-CV, 2019 WL 3436608, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 30, 2019, no pet.); 

Venzor v. AMG BT Note One, LLC, No. 02-19-00177-CV, 2019 WL 3436609, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 30, 2019). In our previous opinions, we stated that we 

were dismissing these appeals because after we had informed appellants that they had 

not arranged to pay for the clerk’s record, as appellate rules required, these appeals 

would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellants still made no arrangements 

to pay for the clerk’s record in either appeal. Thus, we dismissed them both for want 

of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

On August 14, 2019, appellants filed motions for rehearing in both appeals, 

and this court, over expressed reservations regarding the explanations given by 

appellants, reinstated both appeals “in the interest of justice.” Shortly after, appellants 

filed a motion to consolidate both appeals, which this court granted. In our order

consolidating these cases, we instructed appellants that it was incumbent upon 

appellants to pay for a single clerk’s record to be filed for these appeals by

September 25, 2019. The clerk’s record was paid for, received by this court on 

September 24, 2019, and appellants’ briefing deadline for these appeals was set for 

October 24, 2019.
4

Appellants did not file a brief on or before October 24, 2019. On October 31, 

2019, appellees filed a motion asking this court to dismiss these consolidated appeals

for want of prosecution. Appellants have not responded to this motion, and 

appellants have still not filed a brief. Because appellants have failed to file a brief, we 

dismiss these appeals for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 

43.2(f). 

Per Curiam

Delivered: November 21, 2019
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 16 - 00471 - CR EX PARTE MARK DEWAYN E HALLCY ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

### December 30 , 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Appearing pro se, applicant Mark Dewayne Hallcy has filed an original proceeding in this court seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Hallcy’s filing states he is accused of committing the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and has been held in jail for over ninety days without indictment. He seeks a writ compelling his release, release on a personal bond, or a bail reduction. 1 The filing makes reference to a “pending” proceeding in a district court but it gives no indication Hallcy has sought from the district court the relief he requests here.

1 See T EX . C O DE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 17.151, § 1(1) (West 2015) (providing that a defendant detained in jail may be entitled to either a personal - recognizance bond or a bail reduction if he is accused of a felony and the State is not ready for trial within ninety days from the commencement of detention ).2

An intermediate court of appeals does not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters. See T EX . G OV ’T C ODE A NN . § 22.221(d) (West 2004) (original habeas corpus jurisdiction of intermediate courts of appeals limited to civil matters); Watson v. State, 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App.
— Amarillo 2002, pet. refused) (citing Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Tex. App.
— El Paso 1994, no pet.)). Instead, habeas jurisdiction in criminal proceedings rests with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, and the county courts. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.05 (West 2015); Watson, 96 S.W.3d at 500. Moreov er, Hallcy is represented by counsel. Even were we authorized to address the merits of his complaint we would not do so because a defendant in a criminal law matter, represented by counsel, is not entitled to a hybrid representation. See Ex parte Bohanna n, 350 S.W.3d 116, 116 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (stating because habeas applicant was represented by counsel and not entitled to hybrid representation, court would disregard and take no action on the “numerous” submissions he filed pro se ); In re Foster, No. 14 - 16 - 00928 - CR , 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 12476, at *1 (Tex. App.
— Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 22, 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (“The absence of a right to hybrid representation means that a relator’s pro se mandamus p etition should be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s review”) (citing Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)). Because Hallcy seeks relief we have no jurisdiction to grant, his application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. Per Curiam Do not publish.
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 POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.83 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery