alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# How to find out about changes in DSCR operating status during inclement weather, other emergencies

/ Published Jan. 4, 2021
Richmond, Va. , 
The weather in the Richmond Metro area has been as uncertain this year as everything else has been during the global pandemic, with temperatures varying on some days by 20 degrees. But when winter-like weather or hazardous driving conditions do arrive, how will you be notified of changes in Defense Supply Center Richmond’s operating status?

There are several ways center employees can find out about changes in the installation’s operating status during inclement weather and other emergencies. If there are any changes in operating status (i.e. delayed openings, closures), the home page of DLA Aviation’s public website will display a change in status. Employees can also call the DSCR Information/Hazardous Weather Hotline at (804) 279-3599.

Richmond area television stations (WTVR 6, WRIC 8 and WWBT 12) also run installation delays or closure announcements both on-air and on their webpages.

Employees can be notified of operating status changes on their mobile or home numbers, text or personal email by signing up for the AtHoc computer-based emergency notification system (available for common-access card holders who are current DLA employees). To make sure personal information is up-to-date, log into AtHoc, which can be found in each employees’ desktop applications or by clicking on the “show hidden icons” bar on the bottom of your computer screen. Once AtHoc opens, click on “Access Self Service” to review and/or update email addresses and contact numbers.

An Emergency Notification Guide outlines all the methods listed above to remain aware of changes to the installation’s operational status.
CAAP-11-0000562

#### Yamashiro v. Hay

Affirmed
#### Angelique Vasquez, Appellant, v Segundo I. Buri Chimborazo et al., Respondents.

[63 NYS3d 235]—

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Donna M. Mills, J.), *433entered November 28, 2016, which, in this action for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that her vehicle was stopped at a red light when it was rear-ended by defendants’ vehicle *(see Bajrami v Twinkle Cab Corp.,*147 AD3d 649 [1st Dept 2017]). In opposition, defendants failed to provide a non-negligent explanation for the accident. Defendants’ opposition consisted of an affirmation of their attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the accident *(see Brown v Nocella,*149 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2017]). Moreover, the contention by defendants’ counsel that plaintiff’s vehicle stopped suddenly in the intersection was insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence on the part of defendants’ vehicle *(see Alvarez v Bryant,*143 AD3d 527 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Andrias, Gische, Kern and Singh, JJ.
#### Com. v. Villanueva

11/16/2015

432 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1128
(May 4, 2017)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rhuster Etheart, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 395]

*411Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J. at plea; Robert M. Stolz, J. at sentencing), rendered December 4, 2013, convicting defendant of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to term of 11⁄2 to 3 years, held in abeyance, motion by assigned counsel to be relieved denied without prejudice to renewal pending further information from assigned counsel as to her communications with defendant regarding his appeal.

Assigned counsel asserts that defendant has not authorized her to pursue certain potentially viable appellate issues. However, although defendant was apparently paroled to United States immigration authorities in 2014, assigned counsel’s letter to defendant dated September 18, 2015, along with a copy of the brief filed with this court, was sent to a residential address. Accordingly, we hold the appeal in abeyance and deny assigned counsel’s motion without prejudice to renewal upon a showing that defense counsel has communicated to defendant through the immigration authorities or that counsel has attempted to communicate with defendant in another manner that is reasonably calculated to provide notice regarding his appeal or that counsel otherwise communicated with defendant to the extent required by *People v Saunders*(52 AD2d 833 [1976]).

Concur—Tom, J.R, Richter, Mazzarelli and Gische, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Igor Oberman, Petitioner, v New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 8]

Determination of respondent, dated November 6, 2014, which after a hearing, found that petitioner violated New York City Charter § 2604 (b) (2) and 53 RCNY § 1-13 (a) and (b), and ordered him to pay a civil penalty of $7,500, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order, Supreme Court, New York County [Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.], entered October 15, 2015), dismissed, without costs.

The challenged determination is based on substantial evidence *(see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 179-182 [1978]). There is no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Administrative Law Judge *(see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). The “strong circumstantial evidence” *(Matter of S & R Lake Lounge v New York State Liq. Auth.,*87 NY2d 206, 210 [1995]), including records of numerous calls involving petitioner’s work telephone and donations to petitioner’s political campaign, raised a reasonable inference that petitioner used his public employer’s resources for private purposes, in violation of NY City Charter § 2604 (b) (2) and 53 RCNY § 1-13 (a) and (b). The penalty is not shockingly disproportionate to the offense *(see Matter of Kelly v Safir,*96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]), in light of the extent of petitioner’s misconduct, the warnings he had received against such misconduct, his failure to accept responsibility, and the high ethical standards to which he was held as an attorney.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Sweeny, Renwick; Andrias and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
# DLA Distribution hosts New Zealand Defense Force 

/ Published April 23, 2019
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Members of the New Zealand Defense Force visited Defense Logistics Agency Distribution headquarters and its largest distribution center in the network, DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, March 20 to discuss DLA’s global logistics processes and how DLA Distribution supports foreign military sales customers.

The group began at DLA Distribution headquarters with a command overview, highlighting Distribution’s worldwide network, and its core competencies of strategic distribution and transportation planning. The group also discussed special services offered by the organization such as kitting and hazardous material handling. 

The delegation then visited DLA Distribution Susquehanna’s 1.7 million square foot Eastern Distribution Center, the largest warehouse in the Department of Defense. There they visited key locations, including receiving operations, the Consolidation and Containerization Point, the high-rise storage and retrieval system, and the air line of communication pallet build area.

The New Zealand visit was part of a DLA Distribution program that allows foreign and domestic service members to gain a firsthand look at Department of Defense logistics and develop an understanding of DLA’s global distribution support.
Exhibit 15.20




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-117509, No. 333-130852, No. 333-136684 and No. 333-152820) on Form S-8 of Elbit Imaging Ltd., of our report dated June 25, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Plaza Centers N. V. as of December 31, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2008, which report appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 20-F/A of Elbit Imaging Ltd.




/s/ KPMG Hungária Kft.


KPMG Hungária Kft.




Budapest, Hungary


January 25, 2011
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust I (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding I, L.P. for
the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haig Nargesian, Regular Trustee
of the Trust, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST I


                              By:  /s/ HAIG NARGESIAN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Haig Nargesian *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: March 29, 2005
_____________________

* Haig Nargesian functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15009]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6108-4]


Science Advisory Board; Notification of Public Teleconference 
Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, notice is hereby given that the Science Advisory Board's (SAB) 
Executive Committee, will conduct a public teleconference meeting on 
Wednesday, June 24, 1998, between the hours of 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM, 
Eastern Time. The meeting will be coordinated through a conference call 
connection in Room 3709 of the Mall at the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. The public is 
welcome to attend the meeting physically or through a telephonic link. 
Additional instructions about how to participate in the conference call 
can be obtained by calling Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson at (202) 260-
4126 by June 22, 1998.
    In this meeting the Executive Committee plans to review drafts from 
several of its Committees. These anticipated drafts include:

(1) Environmental Engineering Committee Review of the ORD Pollution 
Prevention Research Plan
(2) Environmental Engineering Committee Review of the Agency's Surface 
Impoundments Survey
(3) Environmental Engineering Committee Review of the Agency's Quality 
Management Program
(4) Research Strategies Advisory Committee's Commentary on the ORD 
Budget Presentation and Process

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing 
further information concerning the meeting or wishing to submit 
comments should contact Dr. Donald G. Barnes, Designated Federal 
Officer for the Executive Committee, Science Advisory Board (1400), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC 20460; telephone 
(202) 260-4126; FAX (202) 260-9232; and via the INTERNET at: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7c5c6d5c9c2d489c3c8c9e7c2d7c689c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d3b1b2a1bdb6a0fdb7bcbd93b6a3b2fdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a>. Copies of the relevant documents are available from 
the same source. Draft documents will also be available on the SAB 
Website (http:///www.epa.gov/sab) at least one week prior to the 
meeting.

    Dated: May 29, 1998.
Donald G. Barnes,
Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 98-15009 Filed 6-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/21/14

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with Melonie Santiago-Mosier/Sun Edison

SUMMARY: 

Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to Melonie Santiago-Mosier of Sun 

Edison on September 5, 2014. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on 

June 2, 2014. 

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Ken Mitchell/EPA R4

Matt Clouse/EPA OAP

Chris Sherry/EPA OAP

External Stakeholders

Melonie Santiago-Mosier/Sun Edison
#### Natalie Trimarchi et al., Appellants, v Genovese Drug Stores, Inc., Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 382]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated October 31, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant met its initial burden on its motion for summary judgment of establishing that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition, and in response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply here, as the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defect or condition which caused the accident was in the exclusive control of the defendant *(see Ruggiero v Waldbaums Supermarkets,*242 AD2d 268, 269 [1997]; *Meegan v Westbury Prop. Inv. Co.,*234 AD2d 433 [1996]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
New Mid-America region director reflects on the year that was
 By Jeff Landenberger
  Mid-America started the year with news that its director, Joe Arnold, would be departing and Kathy Atkins-Nuñez had been selected to take the helm. Arnold invited Atkins-Nuñez to Mid-America’s leadership summit held in February. Looking back, Atkins-Nuñez said she was grateful for that opportunity. “I was able to meet the leaders in Mid-America prior to getting the position and that gave me a little edge,” Atkins-Nuñez said. **The pandemic, wildfires and hurricanes were all challenges that DLA Disposition Services Mid-America helped the nation face.




3 photos placed together, including the Covid-19 virus, trees on fire and a hurricane from space.
        2020 missions
            The pandemic, wildfires and hurricanes were all challenges that DLA Disposition Services Mid-America helped the nation face.

            SHARE IMAGE:

                Download Image
                    Image Details
                    
                    Photo By: Jeff Landenberger
                    
                    VIRIN: 201223-D-YU183-001**“I was able to become familiar with them, I had been able to talk with them and was able to establish an initial working relationship that was not geo-distance.” Keeping the workforce and customers safe was the top priority, ensuring masks and other personal protective equipment were worn, following social distancing and other guidelines enabled the Mid-American team to continue operations. “We were able to support the warfighter, including a large Army divestiture,” Atkins-Nuñez said. “We were also able to support requests from first responders looking for equipment to fight the wildfires out west and hurricanes in the east.” Through all of this, Atkins-Nuñez said the Mid-America team remained very flexible. “As the request for equipment to be issued or the amount of property being turned in increased, we would need to recall people to handle the workload. I just want to thank everyone in Mid-America for taking care of our customers, being flexible, and continuing the mission. When asked what challenges may lay ahead she said with so many people teleworking on and off for most of the year, relearning, reengaging and getting back to the normal swing of things will take time. Looking to next year Atkins-Nuñez said she is looking forward to getting out and visiting the sites of Mid-America and meeting the rest of the team.
2017-0340.

#### State v. Jackson.

Lorain App. No. 14CA010555.
2017-0282.

#### State v. Lunder.

Cuyahoga App. No. 103653, 2017-Ohio-84.
# Interconnection Equipment Contracts produce early savings

/ Published May 14, 2020
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
The Interconnection Equipment Contracts awarded in late 2019 are already paying off for Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime customers.

DLA Land – Aberdeen reported a 35.6 percent savings across 49 consumable parts awarded to IEC Multiple-Award Contract holders in April. The savings represent $273,000, with the bulk of items supporting strategic Army communications systems including tactical radars and radios.

Aberdeen is projecting an additional $7 million in orders across nearly 100 supply parts for the month of May. Pending orders include items supporting the U.S. Army Communications Electronics Command, the Joint Battle Command-Platform and multiple DLA Maritime supported weapons systems including littoral, expeditionary, common electronics, crudes and submarine logistics.

“Warfighter First remains our priority as we support the platforms that keep our nation safe,” said Navy Rear Adm. John Palmer, DLA Land and Maritime commander. “These contracts are yet another example of DLA’s commitment to ensuring the readiness and lethality of our nation’s warfighters through efficient, effective logistics solutions.”

Aberdeen awarded IEC contracts to seven companies in December as part of a multiple-award contract strategy to supply parts for Department of Defense interconnection equipment systems. Contract-holders become part of a pool for competing awards within the interconnection parts universe encompassing 150,000 DLA-managed items and 6,000 Army-managed items including wiring harnesses, cables, connectors, accessories and installation kits.

The ten-year contracts have a total ceiling of $808.1 million with an estimated overall savings of $83 million across the life of the contracts.
#### Ross v. Johnson

DA 16-0704

06/27/17

2017 MT 159N

Affirmed

Dist. 11 (Flathead)
**Exhibit
      10(k)(10)**


AMENDMENT
      NO. 9


TO


ALLTEL
      CORPORATION PROFIT-SHARING PLAN


(January
      1, 2002 Restatement)




WHEREAS,
      Alltel Corporation (the "Company") maintains the Alltel Corporation
      Profit-Sharing Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2002, and
      as
      subsequently amended, (the "Plan"); and




WHEREAS,
      the Company desires further to amend the Plan;




NOW,
      THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Company hereby amends the Plan in the
      respects hereinafter set forth:




1. 
      Effective as of July 1, 2006, a new subsection (kk) is added to Appendix B
      of
      the Plan to provide as follows:




(kk) For
      an
      Employee who was an employee of Amarillo Celltelco or related entity ("Cellular
      One of Amarillo") immediately prior to July 1, 2006, and became an


Employee
      on July 1, 2006, the
      Employee's period or periods of employment with Cellular One of
      Amarillo.




2. 
      Effective as of July 1, 2006, a new subsection (kk) is added to Appendix C
      of
      the Plan to provide as follows:




(kk)  For
      an
      Employee who was an employee of Amarillo Celltelco or related entity ("Cellular
      One of Amarillo") immediately prior to July 1, 2006, and became an


Employee
      on
      July 1, 2006, the Employee's period or periods of employment with Cellular
      One
      of Amarillo.




IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, by its duly authorized officer, has caused this
      Amendment No. 9 to the Alltel Corporation Profit-Sharing Plan (January 1, 2002
      Restatement) to be executed on this 27th day of June, 2006.




ALLTEL
      CORPORATION








By:
      /s/ Scott T.
      Ford


Title:
      President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Respondent, v Donna Ferrato, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[55 NYS3d 191]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered July 8, 2015, which denied defendant Ferrato’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously modified, on the law, and the motion granted to the extent of directing that, in the event plaintiff moves to restore the matter to the calendar, the matter be referred for a traverse hearing, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

*547Plaintiff’s process server attempted to serve defendant at her apartment, which was a loft accessed directly from an elevator. The process server averred that a woman was standing inside holding a baby and a party was in progress, so he dropped the papers. Denying that service was properly made pursuant to CPLR 308 (2), plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a woman who stated that she was at the entrance to the apartment and holding a baby at the time specified by the process server, but that he never identified himself, did not ask her to take the papers, did not attempt to gain access, and did not hand any papers to her or drop papers near her. Instead, the elevator door closed with the process server and the papers still inside.

Under this version of the events, service was not properly made pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). While plaintiff argued that the “outer bounds” of defendant’s dwelling extended to include the elevator, it did not establish either that its process server was not permitted to proceed or that service was made upon “a person of suitable age and discretion” *(see F.I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v Chen,*41 NY2d 794, 797 [1977]). Further, since plaintiff did not establish that service was refused upon the process server informing the person at the apartment that service was being made by leaving a copy of the summons outside the door (inside the elevator) of the person to be served, plaintiff did not demonstrate that the process server made the person aware that such service was being made *(Bossuk v Steinberg,*58 NY2d 916, 918 [1983]). In light of the factual issues as to the validity of service, the threshold issue of personal service should have been resolved with a traverse hearing *(see NYCTL 1998-1 Trust & Bank of N.Y. v Rabinowitz,*7 AD3d 459 [1st Dept 2004]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
No. 12-7338.

#### Shahin *v.*Bhatt, Secretary, Delaware Department of Transportation.

C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certio-rari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin*v. *District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U. S. 1 (1992) *(per curiam).*