alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28384-28385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13760]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1215-DR]


Tennessee; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Tennessee, (FEMA-1215-DR), dated April 20, 1998, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of Tennessee, is hereby amended to include the following areas among 
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of April 20, 1998:

    Madison County for Individual Assistance.


[[Page 28385]]


(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)
Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 98-13760 Filed 5-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14813]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-42-005]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Refund Report

May 29, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 26, 1998, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) filed 
a report of the refunds. This filing was made pursuant to a September 
10, 1997, order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued at 
Docket Nos. RP97-369-000 et al.
    ANR's report of refunds summarizes the status of refunds owed to 
ANR for Kansas ad valorem tax overpayments. ANR states, because the 
issue of whether ANR has any obligation to flow through the refunds 
paid to its customers is pending before the Commission, no producer 
refunds have been flowed through.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before June 5, 1998. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-14813 Filed 6-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                         
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|Price of Sabine Pass, LA Natural Gas Exports to Malta (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Price of Sabine Pass, LA Natural Gas Exports to Malta (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 4.70   | 6.70   | W     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | W      | W      | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### Kowal, Matter of, v DiNapoli

3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1152

granted
#### Sherry Kravetz, Respondent, v Robert Kravetz, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 871]

Appeal by the husband from an order of the Supreme Court,. Nassau County (Edward A. Marón, J.), dated February 10, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the wife’s motion which was for an award of temporary maintenance.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“ ‘An agreement between spouses which is fair on its face will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of unconscionability, or fraud, duress, overreaching, or other inequitable conduct’ ” *(Kashman v Kashman,*147 AD3d 1034, 1035 [2017], quoting *McKenna v McKenna,*121 AD3d 864, 865 [2014]). “As with all contracts, prenuptial agreements are construed in accord with the parties’ intent, which is generally gleaned from what is expressed in their writing” *(Van Kipnis v Van Kipnis,*11 NY3d 573, 577 [2008]). “ ‘The words and phrases used by the parties must, as in all cases involving contract interpretation, be given their plain meaning’ ” *(Ellington v EMI Music, Inc.,*24 NY3d 239, 244 [2014], quoting *Brooke Group v JCH Syndicate 488,*87 NY2d 530, 534 [1996]). A prenuptial agreement which contains a waiver of maintenance will not preclude a party from obtaining pendente lite maintenance unless such an award is expressly precluded by the terms of the agreement *(see Davis v Davis,*144 AD3d 623, 624 [2016]; *McKenna v McKenna,*121 AD3d 864, 865 [2014]; *Abramson v Gavares,*109 AD3d 849, 850 [2013]).

Contrary to the husband’s contention, the parties’ prenuptial agreement did not expressly preclude an award of temporary maintenance, nor did the wife expressly waive such an award under the terms of the agreement *(see Davis v Davis,*144 AD3d at 624; *McKenna v McKenna,*121 AD3d at 867; *Abramson v Gavares,*109 AD3d at 850; *Vinik v Lee,*96 AD3d 522, 522-523 [2012]).

Accordingly, that branch of the wife’s motion which was for an award of temporary maintenance was properly granted.

Leventhal, J.R, Hall, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERT G. HOULE,

 Appellant,

v.

CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00234-CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2015-CCV01442)

J U D G M E N T

We withdraw our Judgment of September 28, 2018, and substitute this Judgment its place. 

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see TEX.R.APP.P. 43.5, on the judgment and all 

costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ART. 5 FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE (FDS) FOR PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
September 30, 1998 Form 10-Q, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000067182
<NAME> JOYCE NICHOLS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,256
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,249
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,241
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,787
<PP&E>                                          50,573
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,667
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,697
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,848
<BONDS>                                          3,957
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        648
<COMMON>                                           897
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,697
<SALES>                                         39,289<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,349<F1>
<CGS>                                           24,738
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,573
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,108
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,252
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,856
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,856
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.28
<FN>
<F1>SALES AND TOTAL REVENUES INCLUDE $4,323 MILLION OF EXCISE AND STATE
GASOLINE TAXES
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# Disaster relief equipment bound for Bahamas

/ Published Jan. 17, 2020
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
On Sept. 1, 2019, Hurricane Dorian hit the Bahamas as a Category 5 storm with wind gusts over 200 miles per hour and a storm surge more than 20 feet high. The storm pummeled the island nation for a full day, killing dozens – with hundreds more still missing – and causing billions in property damage.

Months later, debris remains widespread and some areas still do not have electricity. On Jan. 13, more than 300 national delegations, non-profits, corporations, companies and individuals attended a recovery conference there and pledged more than $1.5 billion in funding and in-kind services to help speed the nation’s rebuilding, according a release by the country’s government.

A few days before, on Jan. 10, the Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services at Letterkenny site in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, continued the agency’s longtime support for humanitarian and disaster recovery donation of excess U.S. military equipment by loading up diesel generators bound for the hurricane-savaged nation.

The generators, originally valued at nearly $100,000 for the lot, will be distributed by the Bahamas’ National Emergency Management Agency, or NEMA, which intends to use them for general lighting and emergency electricity at local hospital clinics, water plants, shelters and emergency operation centers. The generators were requisitioned from DLA by the Miami-based non-profit agency Outreach Aid to the Americas, or OAA, and will be transported to the Bahamas for NEMA’s use. The OAA organization typically concentrates its efforts on vulnerable populations in Cuba, Central America and Caribbean nations through the donation of pre-packaged meals, hygiene kits, orthopedic shoes and disaster preparedness training. Like other humanitarian organizations, OAA receives authority to request and receive excess U.S. military property donations from DLA through the U.S. Agency for International Development. “We are very grateful of receiving this donation and happy to be able to provide relief for those people in need,” said OAA Representative Irela Guevara.
# Teamwork makes short work out of long containers

/ Published Sept. 24, 2020
Anniston, Alabama, 
Strong partnerships between two major subordinate commands of the Defense Logistics Agency helped ensure the safe and economical disposal of 150 helicopter blade containers that had become obsolete.

While the DLA Disposition Services site at San Antonio, Texas, normally supports the DLA Distribution site at nearby Corpus Christi, Jeff Livingston, the manager for DLA Disposition Services sites in the area, said it was more economical to have containers go directly from the Distribution warehouse to a facility that could handle the required mutilation of the items.

“When they ship the boxes to us, we turn around and download it into our yard, process it and in another week we are requesting another truck to pick it up and take to Red River or Anniston to be mutilated,” Livingston said. “When we can ship directly we are saving the government time because by not having to download it and uploaded it one extra time, and we are not paying for two trucks we are just paying for one truck.”

Jeremy Beckwith, the deputy commander for DLA Distribution at Corpus Christi said the containers became excess after a modernization effort for the main rotor blade of the UH-60 Blackhawk fleet. The containers were modified by Army Aviation and Missile Command to accommodate the swept trailing edge of the modernized blade. Beckwith said that after aircraft were retrofitted with a modernized blade, the standard legacy blades were returned to DLA Distribution for recapitalization at the Corpus Christi Army Depot. 

“Once the legacy blades are recapitalized by depot, they are packaged by Distribution employees in the legacy container,” Beckwith said. “An improved container for the modernized blade is now in production, thus these empty containers were deemed excess and directed for disposal.”

These size of containers took eight truckloads to turn in. Beckwith said the process adjustment not only relieved the extra handling and shipping costs but also ensured “the value of the excess containers were passed back to the owning service for AWCF investment is priority programs.”

As a controlled item the containers required mutilation before they could become scrap material. As a demilitarization center, the Centralized Demil Division site at Anniston, Alabama, is well equipped to handle the mutilation required.

Area Manager Reggie McFadden explained that once property like the containers is placed on record at the CDD it is staged to go out to demilitarization contractors located in Odenville, Alabama.

“The property is loaded on a trailer and transported to Odenville, where it is then sheared by the contractor,” McFadden said. “After the property is sheared, it is then placed in the shredder where it is downsized more, making the property unrecognizable.”

Once the process is completed the property belongs to the contractor. McFadden said the contractor is free to sell whatever material is left after the process as the company deems necessary.
159 A.3d 1282

#### IN THE MATTER OF WILSON SOTO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 030621998)

May 18, 2017

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 16-042, concluding that as a matter of final discipline pursuant to *Rule*1:20-13(c), WILSON SOTO of YONKERS, NEW YORK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1998, and whose license was administratively revoked pursuant to *Rule*1:28—2(c), effective August 24, 2014, should be reprimanded *116based on discipline imposed in New York for unethical conduct that in New Jersey constitutes violations of *RPC*8.4(b)(commis-sion of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects), and *RPC*8.4(c)(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that WILSON SOTO is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
# L_2011238EN.01003201.xml

| 15.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 238/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 238/32

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUMM GEORGIA/2/2011

of 14 September 2011

extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia

(2011/539/CFSP)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP of 15 September 2008 on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 15 September 2008 the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP establishing the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (‘EUMM Georgia’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 15 September 2008 the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP establishing the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (‘EUMM Georgia’).

| (2) | On 1 July 2011, upon a proposal from High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Political and Security Committee (‘PSC’) adopted Decision EUMM/1/2011 (2) appointing Mr Andrzej TYSZKIEWICZ as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia until 14 September 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 1 July 2011, upon a proposal from High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Political and Security Committee (‘PSC’) adopted Decision EUMM/1/2011 (2) appointing Mr Andrzej TYSZKIEWICZ as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia until 14 September 2011.

| (3) | Pursuant to Article 10(1) of Council Decision 2010/452/CFSP (3), the PSC is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of EUMM Georgia, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Pursuant to Article 10(1) of Council Decision 2010/452/CFSP (3), the PSC is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of EUMM Georgia, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The mandate of Mr Andrzej TYSZKIEWICZ as Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia is hereby extended until 14 September 2012.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 14 September 2011.

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

O. SKOOG

---

(1)  
  OJ L 248, 17.9.2008, p. 26.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 175, 2.7.2011, p. 27.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 213, 13.8.2010, p. 43.

3

---
No. 12-7416.

#### Marshall *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Milton Wood, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 682]

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Mc-Donough, J.), rendered March 8, 2014 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

*1545Defendant was charged in a 10-count indictment with various drug offenses stemming from, among other things, his alleged sale of cocaine on four occasions and the subsequent seizure by law enforcement of drug-related paraphernalia and proceeds, including $1,753.33 in United States currency and a Mercedes-Benz E320 automobile. Thereafter, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and executed a written waiver of appeal in open court. Consistent with the terms of the plea agreement, Supreme Court sentenced defendant as a second felony offender to a prison term of 12 years, to be followed by three years of post-release supervision. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Initially, defendant’s contentions that Supreme Court should have had him evaluated for inclusion in the judicial diversion program (see CPL art 216) and that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive are foreclosed by the unchallenged appeal waiver, which—in any event—the record reflects was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see *People v Smith,*112 AD3d 1232, 1232 [2013], *lv denied*22 NY3d 1203 [2014]; *People v Roche,*106 AD3d 1328, 1329 [2013]; *People v Ivey,*79 AD3d 1531, 1531 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 859 [2011]; see *generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]). Similarly, to the extent that defendant claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to advocate for his inclusion in a judicial diversion program, his valid appeal waiver precludes this claim as well *(cf. People v Ivey,*79 AD3d at 1532).

To the extent that defendant contends that his counsel promised him that he would receive a sentence of less than 12 years in prison, his claim implicates the voluntariness of his plea and survives his valid appeal waiver *(see e.g. People v Dolberry,*147 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2017]). Our review of the record before us, however, does not establish or substantiate defendant’s allegation. In addition, to the extent that defendant’s claim is based upon off-the-record communications between defendant and counsel regarding the sentence that he was going to receive, such a claim is not properly addressed in this appeal *(People v Fairweather,*147 AD3d 1153, 1154 [2017]; *People v Lewis,*143 AD3d 1183, 1185 [2016]).

McCarthy, J.P., Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.