alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Approved for Public Release #21-051

Contact

NGA Media Relations

Phone: (571) 557-5450

Email: MediaRelations@nga.mil

NGA announces Moonshot Labs software factory and accelerator in St. Louis

ST. LOUIS, Missouri – Today, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency announced a new

geospatial technology lab to open at the T-REX innovation center in downtown St. Louis. The

NGA lab, in collaboration with T-REX, a non-profit development facility for innovation and

entrepreneurism, will advance efforts between NGA, industry and academia in the region.

“We will deliver trusted GEOINT with the speed, accuracy, and precision required to hold at risk

the strategic forces our adversaries use to project power and threaten the United States and our

Allies,” said NGA Director Vice Adm. Robert Sharp in his recently released Director’s Intent.

Sharp drew inspiration from President John F. Kennedy’s bold “moonshot” assertion in

September 1962. NGA predecessor organizations mapped the moon in support of the Apollo

missions in the 1960s. The labs will support the NGA moonshot, while enhancing the region’s

technology ecosystem.

Moonshot Labs will be a modern, high-tech space specializing in geospatial technology. The lab

will consist of software developers, technologists and data science personnel. Construction will

begin soon, with an anticipated completion date of spring 2021.

# # #

About NGA

NGA delivers world-class geospatial intelligence that provides a decisive advantage to

policymakers, warfighters, intelligence professionals and first responders.

NGA is a unique combination of intelligence agency and combat support agency. It is the world

leader in timely, relevant, accurate and actionable geospatial intelligence. NGA enables the U.S.

intelligence community and the Department of Defense to fulfill the president’s national security

priorities to protect the nation.

For more information about NGA, visit us online at www.nga.mil, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram,

Flipboard, SoundCloud or YouTube.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 2020-11

Oct. 21, 2020
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 41036 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. CO SM E A RM AN D O CA RR I LLO
- M AR TI N EZ D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 08- C R - 209- 1 B ef ore SM ITH , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * The Fed e r alPubl i c D e fe nde ra ppo i nt ed t o r e pr e s e nt Cos m e Ar m and o C a r r illo -M a r tin e z h a s m o v e d fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w a n d h a s file d a b r ie f in ac c o r da nc e w i t h A n d er s v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S . 738 ( 196 7) . C arri l l o- M art i n ez h a s n o tfi le d a r e s p o n s e . O u rin d e p e n d e n tr e v ie w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l’s bri ef di s c l o s e s no n on f

rivol ou s i ssue f

or app eal . A ccor di n gl y, coun sel ’ s m ot i on f or l eave t o w i t h draw i s G R A N T E D , coun seli s excused f rom f u rt h er r espon sibi l i t i es h e r e in , a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 16, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
#### George Henry Bryant, Respondent, v Dennis Bryant, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 352]

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County (Lee L. Holzman, S.), entered January 18, 2008, which, after a nonjury trial in an action to set aside a deed, declared the New York deed at issue null and void and cancelled the deed, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from decision, same court and Surrogate, entered on or about January 18, 2008, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

Plaintiff demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the New York deed purportedly conveying the decedent’s (the parties’ mother) interest in property to defendant was a forgery *(see Albany County Sav. Bank v McCarty,*149 NY 71, 80 [1896]; *Son Fong Lum v Antonelli,*102 AD2d 258, 260-261 [1984], *affd*64 NY2d 1158 [1985]; *see also Winfield Capital Corp. v Green Point Sav. Bank,*261 AD2d 539, 540-541 [1999]). Indeed, plaintiffs forensic document expert presented detailed testimony explaining that the signature on the subject deed was not made by the same writer as those on the exemplars in evidence. The court was presented with further testimony and documentary evidence indicating that the deed was not legitimately executed, acknowledged, and delivered. There exists no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations *(see e.g. Saperstein v Lewenberg,*11 AD3d 289 [2004]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions, *497including that plaintiff failed to produce a material witness, and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20549
 Form 6-K
 Report of Foreign Private Issuer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 
 For the month of: December, 2005
    
    Commission File Number: 1-14830
 GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR INC.
 Translation of Registrants name into English
 725 Montée de Liesse
Ville Saint-Laurent, Québec
Canada H4T 1P5  Address of Principal Executive Offices
  o þ
 
 
  o þ




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR INC.Date: December 1, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Lindsay MatthewsName:
    Lindsay MatthewsTitle:
    Director, Legal Servicesand Corporate Secretary




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit
    
    Description of Exhibit99.1
    
    Press Release Dated December 1, 2005  Gildan Activewear Announces
Record Fourth Quarter and Full Year Sales and Earnings99.2
    
    Gildan Activewear Inc.s Unaudited Interim Consolidated Financial
Statements as at and for the Three- and Twelve-Month Periods Ended
October 2, 2005 and October 3, 2004 and Related Notes
Order entered October 17, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00327-CV

ERIKA JACOBS, Appellant

V.

GREYHOUND BUS LINES CORPORATE OFFICE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-03277

ORDER

Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia

Before the Court is appellant’s September 7, 2022 “Motion” in which she 

complains of this Court’s August 2, 2022 memorandum opinion. We construe this 

motion as a motion for rehearing and DENY the motion.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
### The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge 1 

### for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 95-2499

___________ Rick Eugene Impola, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 25, 1996 Filed: March 27, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.
Rick E ugene Impola appeals the District Court's denial of his 2 8 1 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) motion to vacate, set aside , or correct his sentence. We affirm.
Imp ola pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture marijuana i n violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). On direct appeal, this Court affirme d his sixty-month sentence. United States v. Impola , No. 94-1183, 1994 WL 279282 (8th Cir. June 24, 1994) (per curiam). Impola filed this section 2255 mo tion, alleging that his criminal conviction constituted doubl e jeopardy because of aprevious civil forfeiture, and that his counsel was constit utionallyineffective for failing to raise the double jeopard y argument.

### -2- The District Court's decision that the Double Jeopardy Clause d id not apply was a legal determination, which this Court reviews de novo , se e United St ates v. Clementi , 70 F.3d 997, 999 (8th Cir. 1995), and a s Impola 's section 2255 motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing , this Court should affirm only if the motion, files, and record conclusivel y show Impola was not entitled to relief, see Unit ed States v. Duke , 50 F.3d 571, 576 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 224 (1995).
Impola's argument is foreclosed by this Court's recent decision i n Unit edStates v. Smith , 75 F.3d 382, 385-86 (8th Cir. 1996) (holdin g defend ant not subjected to double jeopardy where civil forfeiture an d criminal prosecution were merely different aspec ts of "single, coordinated prosecution"). The government initiated the civil forfeiture proceeding and the criminal prosecution "at, or very close to, the same time." Id. at 386 . Furthermore, the civil forfeiture complaint and supportin g affidavit made reference to the other events for which Impola was indicted ; and a co-defendant was indicted for the events that led to the civi l forfei ture of Impola's residence. See id. (finding most importan t consideration "is whe ther the government pursued its remedies against the defendant concurrentl y or filed a second action after it was dissatisfied with its initial attempt to prosecute a particul ar crime"; this Court asks "common-sense questions," including "whether there is some evidence o f coordinationof the two matters that connects them in an obvious way")
. As Impola was not subjected to double jeopardy, his counsel was no t ineffective. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

### -3- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10886]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,685]


Burke Industrial Supply, Inc.; Morganton, NC; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 26, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Burke Industrial 
Supply, Inc., Morganton, North Carolina.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of April 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10886 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                              54
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    54
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      54
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          524,875
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,160,129
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,684,950)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        54
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    30
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     (56)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,223)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,249)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,249)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Jerome Stallone, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Submitted December 28, 2009;

decided January 19, 2010

Reported below, 65 AD3d 1410.

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*13 NY3d 712 (2009)].
NUMBER 13-20-00376-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT 

LLOYD'S OF LONDON 

SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. 

NAJL05000016-H87 Appellant,

v.

MAYSE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 343rd Judicial District 

of Aransas County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. The appellant's brief in the above 

cause was due on June 9, 2020. On December 7, 2020, the Clerk of the Court notified 
2

appellant that the order appellant is attempting to appeal is not appealable. On December 

28, 2020, the Court received a letter from appellant’s counsel indicating appellant will not 

continue to pursue the appeal of the order granting the motion to strike, motion to modify,

and motion for reconsideration signed on August 24, 2020 which was the order at issue 

in this appeal. Furthermore, appellant has not taken any action to prosecute this appeal 

since the letter.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.3(b). 

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the 

25th day of February, 2021.
##### 



NEWS RELEASE
 BROOKFIELD CONSORTIUM COMPLETES O&Y REIT
SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTION
 For Immediate Release
 TORONTO, November 29, 2005
    Brookfield Properties Corporation, www.brookfieldproperties.com
 BPO Properties Ltd., www.bpoproperties.com




---



##### 



Contact:
 Brookfield Properties and BPO Properties:
    mcoley@brookfieldproperties.com
  Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward Looking Statements
 Note: This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. The words believe, expect, anticipate, intend, estimate, and other expressions
which are predictions of or indicate future events and trends and which do not relate to historical
matters, identify forward looking statements. Reliance should not be placed on forward-looking
statements because they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may
cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the companies to differ materially from
anticipated future results, performance or achievement expressed or implied by such forward-looking
statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those set forward in
the forward-looking statements include general economic conditions, local real estate conditions,
timely re-leasing of occupied square footage upon expiration, interest rates, availability of
equity and debt financing and other risks detailed from time to time in the companies 40-F filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The companies undertakes no obligation to publicly
update or revise any forward looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future
events or otherwise.
   2
WMLT 2007-A U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS MASTER SERVICER 1123 CERTIFICATION **Re:  Wachovia Mortgage Loan Trust, LLC, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series****2007-A**Pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement, the undersigned Officer, to the best of his/her knowledge, hereby certifies to the following obligations as set forth in Item 1123 of Regulation AB applicable to it: (A) a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or such other applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function Participant, has been made under such officer's supervision and, (B) to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, in all material respects throughout such year or portion thereof. U.S. Bank National Association, as Master Servicer _/s/ Bryan R. Calder_______________ Name:  Bryan R. Calder Title: Executive Vice President Date: March 1, 2008
<PAGE>
                           EXHIBIT 15


To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
  of Sears, Roebuck and Co.

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of
the unaudited interim financial information of Sears, Roebuck
and Co. for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 28,
1997 and June 29, 1996, as indicated in our report dated July
24, 1997; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no
opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is
included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
three-month period ended June 28, 1997, is incorporated by
reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-64879, 2-80037,
33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825,
33-58139, 33-58851, 33-64345, 333-8141 of Sears, Roebuck and
Co.; Registration Statement Nos. 33-64215 and 333-9817 of Sears,
Roebuck and Co. and Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp.; Registration
Statement Nos. 33-57205 and 333-11973 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.
and the Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees;
Registration Statement No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.
and Sears DC Corp.; and Registration Statement Nos. 33-64775 and
333-18591 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Deferred Compensation Plan.

We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to
Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered
a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant
within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chicago, Illinois
July 24, 1997
#### Transcontinental Insurance Company et al., Appellants, v Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

[962 NYS2d 903]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York *574County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered February 15, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, declared that defendant is only obligated to indemnify in the underlying personal injury action within its stated policy limit, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly followed *Preserver Ins. Co. v Ryba*(10 NY3d 635 [2008]) in holding that the insured’s work in New York did not entitle it to unlimited employer’s liability coverage under the policy issued by defendant. Assuming arguendo that notice of the insured’s work in New York is a factor in triggering the coverage sought by plaintiffs, the motion court properly found such notice lacking.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Saxe, Román and Feinman, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrew C. Mead, Appellant.

Submitted November 9, 2009;

decided December 15, 2009

Reported below, 64 AD3d 814.

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 denied as unnecessary and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          319379                     
<NAME>                                         PSC Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    JUL-04-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                                1,897
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        27,099
<ALLOWANCES>                          1,382
<INVENTORY>                          18,843
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     49,884
<PP&E>                               36,599
<DEPRECIATION>                       10,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      171,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                43,785
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                112
<OTHER-SE>                           12,909
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         13,021
<SALES>                             101,537
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    101,537
<CGS>                                60,923
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        37,967
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    6,754
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (3,748)
<INCOME-TAX>                         (1,388)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (2,360)
<DISCONTINUED>                         (101)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         (2,461)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.22)
        



</TABLE>
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




I, Juan
Restrepo Gutierrez, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1)
            the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
      Chancery Resources, Inc. for the year ended November 30, 2009 (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 Chancery Resources,
    Inc.




Dated:
March 12, 2010





/s/
      Juan Restrepo GutierrezJuan
      Restrepo GutierrezChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer andPrincipal
      Accounting Officer)Chancery
      Resources, Inc.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Chancery Resources, Inc. and will be
retained by Chancery Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.