alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# McGovern assumes command of DLA Distribution Corpus Christi, Texas

/ Published June 18, 2019
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas, 
In a change of command ceremony on June 18, Army Lt. Col. Justin McGovern assumed command of DLA Distribution Corpus Christi, Texas.

“As one great leader departs, another arrives to take the helm,” said Navy Rear Admiral Kevin M. Jones, commander DLA Distribution. “Only the best are nominated to serve as joint commanders at our distribution centers.”

McGovern graduated from The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2003 and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Transportation Corps with a branch detail to the Chemical Corps. 

His assignments include a battalion in the 1st Armored Division, Fort Riley, Kansas, including a deployment to Iraq; then the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, including a deployment to Afghanistan.

Later he would command a forward support company in the 82nd Airborne Division whom he led in Afghanistan. He would later serve as the battalion executive officer for the 82nd Brigade Support Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team and 82nd Airborne Division. McGovern also deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Inherent Resolve.

In addition to multiple combat tours and prominent positions, McGovern’s civilian education consists of a Master of Business Administration in Supply Chain Management from the University of Kansas and a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Criminal Justice from The Citadel.

His military education includes the Command and General Staff College, Combined Logistics Captain Career Course, Chemical Officer basic course, Jumpmaster Course and Airborne School.

Addressing the DLA Distribution Corpus Christi workforce, McGovern said, “I am truly humbled to be part of this remarkable team and I am looking forward to working with you to take the center to the next level,” said McGovern. “We are setting the stage for the key modernization efforts for the entire distribution enterprise. Your efforts will set the standard for every distribution center to follow. This will make the world class support we provide the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, even better.”
No. 12-6974.

#### Burgos *v.*Massachusetts.

Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                              SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as chief executive officer of
Microvision, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)     the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008
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 Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date:May 9, 2008 | By: /s/ Alexander Y. Tokman   Alexander Y. Tokman 
 Chief Executive Officer
|---------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
No. 12-883.

#### EJS Properties, LLC *v.*City of Toledo, Ohio, et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
MER TELEMANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS LTD.

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
on Form F-3 (File No. 333-128225) and Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Files
No. 333-12014 and No. 333-123321) pertaining to MER Telemanagement Solutions
Ltd. of our report dated March 30, 2007 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of MER Telemanagement Solutions Ltd. included in the Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006.

                                           /s/ Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer
                                           ------------------------------------
Tel-Aviv, Israel                               KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER
March 30, 2007                             A Member of Ernst & Young Global
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arelis Young, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 409]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), entered on or about September 1, 2011, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate a judgment of conviction, same court (Arlene Goldberg, J., at plea; Laura A. Ward, J., at sentencing), rendered March 2, 2000, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant’s motion was made entirely on grounds that are not pursued on appeal, her present claims relating to the actions or inactions of the plea court and counsel are unpre-served and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversing the order.

Defendant’s claim that the plea court (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.) gave misleading information about the immigration consequences of the plea *(see People v Peque,*22 NY3d 168, 193-197 [2013], *cert denied*574 US —, 135 S Ct 90 [2014]) is based on the face of the record and therefore is not cognizable on a CPL article 440 motion, notwithstanding that a *Peque*claim may lead to additional fact-finding *(see People v Llibre,*125 AD3d 422, 423 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*26 NY3d 969 [2015]). Moreover, *Peque*is only retroactive to cases pending on direct appeal *(id.*at 424). In any event, the plea court provided a satisfactory warning of the potential deportation consequences of the plea.

Defendant’s claim that her plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to negotiate a plea with more favorable immigration consequences is unsupported by anything in the record. The claim that a more immigration-favorable plea might have been available is speculative *(see People v Olivero,*130 AD3d 479, 480 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*26 NY3d 1042 [2015]), and the submissions on the motion fail to establish any reasonable probability that the People would have made such an offer *(see Lafler v Cooper,*566 US 156, 163-164 [2012]).

Concur—Richter, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2035 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2035

  To withdraw certain lands located in the Mark Twain National Forest 
from the mining and mineral leasing laws of the United States, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               April 20 (legislative day, April 11), 1994

  Mr. Bumpers introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To withdraw certain lands located in the Mark Twain National Forest 
from the mining and mineral leasing laws of the United States, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ozark Rivers Protection Act of 
1994''.

SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF LANDS WITHIN MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST.

    Subject to valid existing rights, after the date of enactment of 
this Act, all Federal lands within the Eleven Point District of the 
Mark Twain National Forest are withdrawn from entry, location, or 
patent under the general mining laws, the operation of the mineral and 
geothermal leasing laws and the mineral material disposal laws.

                                 <all>
```
# Medical strengthens its partnership with VA to support military, veteran health care 

/ Published April 8, 2019
PHILADELPHIA, a FHCC press releasea Government Accountability Office report fiscal 2019-2021 strategic plan
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1930

AN ACT

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Develministration, and for other purposes. claims and obligations of the Farmers Home Ad- opment Act to improve the administration of
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1930

AN ACT

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development

Act to improve the administration of claims and obligations of the Farmers Home Administration, and for other

purposes.

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 ‘‘Farmers Home Admin5 istration Improvement Act of 1994’’.
2

•S 1930 ES

1 SEC. 2. DELINQUENT FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION

2 OBLIGATIONS.

3 Section 331 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural De4 velopment Act (7 U.S.C. 1981) is amended by adding at

5 the end the following new subsection:

6 ‘‘(c) The Secretary may use for the prosecution or

7 defense of any claim or obligation described in subsection

8 (b)(5) the Attorney General, the General Counsel of the

9 Department of Agriculture, or a private attorney who has

10 entered into a contract with the Secretary.’’.

Passed the Senate March 24 (legislative day, February 22), 1994.

Attest:

Secretary.
FEDERAL AVIATION • ADMINISTRATION 

COMPLIANCE WITH E.O. 12866 

Section 6(a)(3)(E) ofE.O. 12866 requires agencies to identify for the public, in 

a complete, clear, and simple manner, those changes in a regulatory action 

made at the suggestion or recommendation of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget. 

Title of Rulemaking: Pearson Field Airport Special Flight Rules Area 

Regulatory Identification Number: 2120-AK74 

__ .X. __ _ OIRA did not review the rulemaking document. 

OIRA reviewed the rulemaking document, but did not 

suggest or recommend any changes. 

OIRA reviewed the rulemaking document, and we have 

documented the changes we made at OIRA's suggestion or 

recommendation in an attachment to this sheet. 

Signature of Analyst Date 

09/29/2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BRUCE WILLIAMS, JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 220 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of September, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

+q‘pnorable Wm. PO Dar16 

@hl ty hII* tor 

Ellis aounty 

lamhaehie? Texas 

Deir Yri Dariu 0pi.n1on Ilo* o-7199 

for is as 

tier c o n l tr ua ti 

Tour request ior axI oplni 

follormr 

*I would l ppreaiate v inion am to 

whioh aountyr if 

of fees to a 0011 ined below 

eases in a murder 

ught to me by the oonOR 8 elear picture of 

opinion on the matter, neither 

for papmnt of aomts for senioe 

ould the aonmtable r&me to perform 

dmilar oamem whioh may some up?’ 

On aereral oooadons thin Department has aonstrued subdlvi6ion (b) of Se&ion l? of Senate Bill 6 of' the 44th Leglmlatare, Seoond Called Seanion , which mabdirlsion, insofar ao psrtinent, is as follon~r 

*In oountlem wherein the oounty offioers named 

in this lot are aompenuted on the banis of an an- 
804 

~naal wlam, the Nate or Tuam *all not be 

ehargeQ rltb anQ &all not par m7 fee or eomui8don to aar pree!lnot offkoer far any merriaea bj him performed, but UiQ otfiaer ohall 

be paid by tho dowty out of the Oifiaers’ 8a1- 

iry Furid auoh fees and wmmisdono as roulQ 

'etheni~e be paid hia by the Hate far mah 

O&VlOO*." 

: 

It ke slwr from this. l tatuto~th8t the atate or fwr 

im not'liaWe tar the iee~s ~Olaim8Q bl t&4 ';Wnrtsble OC Rllim 

tlOtmfJ -- twt oeuntf boig a a ~818~ bash ?er its oirioors, 

but that lL111s~C!eunt~ ir1 f abh k,,@lm for ,aeh pafhat out ei 

the Ot?teeri' Ilrlary FuM'the preeiart effierm bo&~g 01.8 tee 

b a dor a 8 l ppeare~fm reportm in ,the Btate AuQlter”~e eftieo. 

Thb Departmmt Ma aosmimtmtly aQbomQ te'that eenmtslretihr 

o?:thb l tatuto. (Bee Qpfnia 0 t 000 '0488i U4168i, O-618 w 

O-88001 oeplw of w&leh are l ttaohbd hereto) 

Wem what re.ba?* dQr it tolXeTr it ie aot a*oeP 

~8x7 to wmor pmr eWOnQ wbe8tioa. 

ltnalosurem
|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                 
|View History:                                                                  
|                                                                               
|Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Singapore (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                               
|                                                                               
|Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Singapore (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 2,900  | 6,492  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 27, 2014

s0519

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2014

148120

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148120

COA: 317767

Oakland CC: 2008-220070-FC

NELSON OLWALDO MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 16, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1893

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to impose the social security

earnings test on the retirement annuities of Members of Congress.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 7 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1994

Mr. MCCAIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to impose

the social security earnings test on the retirement annuities of Members of Congress.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL ANNUITIES SUBJECT TO SO4 CIAL SECURITY EARNINGS TEST.

5 (a) CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.—

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 83 of title 5, United

7 States Code, is amended by inserting after section

8 8339 the following new section:
2

•S 1893 IS

1 ‘‘§ 8339a. Limitation on annuities of Members of Con2 gress

3 ‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this

4 chapter, the annuity of any individual described in sub5 section (b) shall be subject to the provisions of section

6 203(b) of the Social Security Act in the same manner as

7 if such annuity was a benefit of such individual under sec8 tion 202 of such Act.

9 ‘‘(b) An individual is described in this subsection if—

10 ‘‘(1) such individual has attained the age of 62

11 years, and

12 ‘‘(2) the computation of the annuity of such in13 dividual is based in whole or in part on the service

14 of such individual as a Member of Congress on or

15 after the date of the enactment of this section.’’.

16 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sec17 tions for chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code,

18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to

19 section 8339 the following new item:

‘‘8339a. Limitation on annuities of Members of Congress.’’.

20 (b) FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM.—

21 (1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 84 of title 5, United

22 States Code, is amended by inserting after section

23 8415 the following new section:
3

•S 1893 IS

1 ‘‘§ 8415a. Limitation on annuities of Members of Con2 gress

3 ‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this

4 chapter, the annuity of any individual described in sub5 section (b) shall be subject to the provisions of section

6 203(b) of the Social Security Act in the same manner as

7 if such annuity was a benefit of such individual under sec8 tion 202 of such Act.

9 ‘‘(b) An individual is described in this subsection if—

10 ‘‘(1) such individual has attained the age of 62

11 years, and

12 ‘‘(2) the computation of the annuity of such in13 dividual is based in whole or in part on the service

14 of such individual as a Member of Congress on or

15 after the date of the enactment of this section.’’.

16 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sec17 tions for chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code,

18 is amended by adding after the item relating to sec19 tion 8415, the following new item:

‘‘8415a. Limitation on annuities of Members of Congress.’’.

Æ
Decided March 30, 2017

#### Altman v 285 W. Fourth LLC

1st Dept: 143 AD3d 415

granted
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             205
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      279
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           7,336
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                          5,431
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,281
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,069)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,482
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,700
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,694
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (178)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (178)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of John F. Kramer, Jr, Respondent, v Rosalie Giannini, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 351]

*637In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5241 to vacate an income execution, the mother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), dated June 27, 2003, which granted the father’s petition and vacated the income execution.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 5241 was enacted to aid in the enforcement of support obligations by permitting a creditor parent to garnish a debtor parent’s wages through an income execution *(see*Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 5241). Pursuant to the statute, the income execution must first be served upon the debtor parent, and must warn that the execution will be served upon his or her employer unless the debtor parent shows a “mistake of fact” within 15 days (CPLR 5241 [c] [iv]). The 15-day period in which to challenge an income execution based upon mistake of fact runs from service of the income execution, which may be made either by ordinary mail, or “in the same manner as a summons” (CPLR 5241 [d], [e]). Since service of the income execution in this case was made by ordinary mail, the father’s 15-day period to challenge it should run from the date the income execution was received, rather than from the date when it was mailed. Although CPLR 5241 is silent in this regard, measuring the time period within which the debtor parent must act from the date of actual receipt will ensure that the debtor parent receives the full 15 days he or she is entitled to by the statute (see *Matter of ATM One v Landaverde,*307 AD2d 922 [2003]; *see also Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Pierre-Louis,*306 AD2d 344 [2003]; *Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Geller,*218 AD2d 797 [1995]; *Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Meta-yer],*137 AD2d 454 [1988]; *Monarch Ins. Co. v Pollack,*32 AD2d 819 [1969]). Measuring the 15-day period from the date of receipt, the father’s petition to vacate the income execution was timely.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly granted the father’s petition to vacate the income execution. The father was not in default of his child support obligations at the time the income execution was served because the parties’ separation agreement, which was incorporated but not merged in their judgment of divorce, provided that his child support payments would decrease if the mother remarried. Since it is undisputed that the mother remarried in February 2003, thereby decreas*638ing the father’s support obligations, the income execution was based upon a “mistake of fact” within the meaning of CPLR 5241 *(see Zuckerman v Zuckerman,*154 AD2d 666 [1989]; *see also Jaeger v Jaeger,*260 AD2d 351 [1999]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.