alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leigh Morse, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 355]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obús, J.), entered on or about July 17, 2015, which, upon defendant’s CPL 420.10 (5) application for reduction of restitution, adjusted the terms of payment to the extent of vacating a payment schedule and directed defendant to make “best efforts” to pay the ordered restitution, unanimously dismissed, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

“[N]o appeal lies from an order arising out of a criminal proceeding absent specific statutory authorization” *(People v Santos,*64 NY2d 702, 704 [1984]), and “a denial of a CPL 420.10 (5) resentencing application is not appealable” *(People v Vasquez,*74 AD3d 462, 463 [1st Dept 2010]). Furthermore, inasmuch as the order that defendant seeks to challenge adjusted the terms of payment, but did not “[r] evoke the entire sentence imposed and resentence the defendant” (CPL 420.10 [5] [d], [a]), it did not constitute a “sentence or resentence” for appealability purposes *(see*CPL 450.10 [2]; 450.30 [3]; *People v Pagan,*19 NY3d 368, 370-371 [2012]). Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the issue of whether this appeal should be dismissed on the ground of nonappealability was not decided by this Court in its orders granting and denying defendant’s motions for certain relief.

*612In any event, defendant’s attempt to relitigate the sentencing court’s calculation of restitution is procedurally improper for various reasons, including the fact that this Court already decided that issue on defendant’s direct appeal (111 AD3d 569 [1st Dept 2013], *lv denied*22 NY3d 1157 [2014]).

Even if we were to reach the merits, Supreme Court’s decision to vacate the payment schedule, but leave the total amount of restitution unchanged, subject to “best efforts” at full payment by defendant, was a provident exercise of discretion.

Concur- — Richter, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
# DSCR celebrates Marine Corps birthday

/ Published Nov. 7, 2019
Richmond, Va, 
Marine Corps service members and Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, employees filled the old center cafeteria Nov. 5 to celebrate the birthday of the Corps.

Steeped in 244 years of tradition, the event began with the 2019 birthday video message from the Marine Commandant Gen. David Berger and Sgt. Maj. of the Marine Corps Troy Black.

Berger reminded Marines of their maritime roots and the future he sees for the service returning to an amphibious-focused force.

“We must be able to do it from the sea,” Berger said. “The sea is where we will launch from, maneuver from and recover to.”

“Marines win as a team," Black said in the video message. “It’s a team sport. We get there, fight, sustain, advance and win as a team.”

Marine Corps Col. Larry Herring, chief, U.S. Marine Corps Customer Facing Division, Customer Operations Directorate and Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. David Sanford, guest of honor, gave remarks honoring and highlighting the accomplishments of the Corps.

Herring said the event is an opportunity to get together and to celebrate and remember the Marine Corps’ great legacy, built by those who came before us and those who will continue to carry that great legacy into the future.

“Today, and every day, we take pride in representing the Marine Corps, to belonging to something bigger than ourselves and to embodying the values our Corps was founded on,” he said.

Following Herring, Sanford addressed the audience.

“I want to say happy birthday to the men and women of our United States Marine Corps. I’ve had the chance of serving with Marines around the world and I always knew I could count on support from the Marines. We may disagree, but that’s ok. We are always on the same team, serving together.  Our adversaries fear our Marines and today’s tradition, professionalism and esprit de corps show why that fear is earned.”

Part of the ceremony included cutting the birthday cake and recognizing the oldest and youngest Marines present.

This year, the oldest present, Chief Warrant Officer Jacqueline Elazier-Allison passed a slice of birthday cake to Captain Katherine Pollock, signifying the passing of experience and knowledge to the next generation.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Watts, Respondent.

[48 NYS3d 602]

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J. at pleas; Daniel P. FitzGerald, J. at sentencing), rendered April 8, 2015, convicting defendant of two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The indictments, charging defendant with second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument under Penal Law § 170.25, in that he possessed counterfeit concert and New York Knicks tickets, were not jurisdictionally defective. As we determined in an alternative holding in *People v Davis,*127 AD3d 614 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*26 NY3d 928 [2015]), such tickets were written instruments that purported to “evidence, create, transfer, terminate or otherwise affect a legal right, interest, obligation or status” (Penal Law § 170.10 [1]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s arguments for revisiting our determination in *Davis.*

Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, Mazzarelli, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.1

                          Director Compensation Program
                                 (May 25, 2006)

The following shall be effective upon the election of directors at the Company's
2006 Annual Shareholders' Meeting:

      o     Directors of the Company who are also employees of the Company are
            not compensated for their services as directors or committee
            members.

      o     All non-employee directors of the Company shall receive a retainer
            of $30,000 per year, plus a fee of $2,000 per meeting of the Board
            attended.

      o     Non-employee directors who serve on a committee of the Board shall
            receive a fee of $1,000 per committee meeting attended.

      o     Each re-elected and newly elected nonemployee director shall receive
            5,000 options to purchase Common Stock of the Company upon election
            to the Board. The options granted shall be priced at the fair market
            value of the Company's Common Stock on the date of grant, fully vest
            in four equal annual installments from the date of grant (subject to
            the Vesting Event set forth below), and expire seven years from the
            date of grant. Such options shall become fully vested at the at the
            conclusion of such director's term of service if the director is not
            re-elected to the Board, except where such failure to re-elect the
            director is the result of (i) a voluntary withdrawal from Board
            service by such director or (ii) prior removal from the Board for
            cause under Section 304 of the California Corporations Code (the
            "Vesting Event").


                                      -4-
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Section 1350
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Merck &
Co., Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Dated: August 6, 2004
    
    
    
    /s/ Judy C. LewentName:
    
    Judy C. LewentTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President & Chief Financial OfficerPresident, Human Health Asia
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>   
<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000

       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            2,537
<SECURITIES>                                      8,248
<RECEIVABLES>                                    13,725
<ALLOWANCES>                                        736
<INVENTORY>                                      12,333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 37,149
<PP&E>                                           58,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                   39,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   59,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            17,277
<BONDS>                                             161
<COMMON>                                          1,342
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                       39,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     59,288
<SALES>                                          67,360
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 67,360
<CGS>                                            49,722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    49,722
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     (5)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5,119
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1,617
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3,502
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3,502
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      3.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      3.00

        

</TABLE>
#### Desiree M., Matter of (Aythea M.)

1st Dept: 143 AD3d 512

denied*
164 A.3d 407

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF, v. MARC ARDIS, DEFENDANT-MOVANT.

March 23, 2017

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a motion for leave to appeal (M-900) as within time is granted.
#### Com. v. Rascoe

11/10/2015

349 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1121
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7502

RICKY DONNELL NELSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY K. HAMILTON, Superintendent; TOD RUNYON, Major; ANDREW REESE, Doctor; BRUCE ZUILLMAN, Lieutenant; SGT. MICHAEL RAKES; OFFICER KEITH DOBSON; SGT. VINCENT W. COLLIER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-605-2) Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 20, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Donnell Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff Wayne Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ricky Donnell Nelson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeNelson v. Hamilton , No. CA-02-605-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
** In light of the facts presented by the carrier, including its assertion that it is nearing completion in 

obtaining Brazilian Government approval, we will grant the carrier’s request for extension of the startup date for an additional 90 days. We will require the carrier to institute service no later than 

November 9, 2011.

We acted on this motion without awaiting expiration of the answer period with the consent of all parties 

served with the request.
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Portal, ND  Liquefied Natural Gas Exports (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Portal, ND  Liquefied Natural Gas Exports (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        | 10.18  | 7.41   | 8.05   | 8.86   | 9.43  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 7.70   | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
# DLA Land and Maritime hosts Energy Deputy Commander during orientation visit

/ Published March 8, 2020
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Commander Navy Rear Adm. John T. Palmer, hosted DLA Energy’s Deputy Commander W. Eric Smith during an orientation visit March 3.

Smith became Energy’s deputy commander in November 2019 and has been visiting the Agency’s major subordinate commands to broaden his knowledge base of DLA’s different supply chain operations.

Smith was previously assigned to DLA, so he’s no stranger to the DLA mission. Prior to his promotion to the Senior Executive Service in 2007, he was a former Army logistics colonel and the executive officer for the DLA Director in 2007 and served as the staff director for DLA’s Logistics Operations Center in 2006.

During his briefing, Palmer touched on the scope of Land and Maritime’s mission and how it supports DLA operations. He shared his team’s operational successes in incorporating its logistical analytical capabilities and praised the positive impact that the DNA Marking initiative has achieved in adding security to the Agency’s supply chain. 

Palmer and Smith, flanked by members of Palmer’s leadership team, shifted the conversation’s focus to the shared Agency objective of efficient and reliable support to the nation’s warfighters. Discussion of the inclusion of the DLA Director’s dashboard and the efficiencies its incorporation generated in the Agency’s awareness of the services needs was an agreement point for the group.

Referencing service demands, Smith articulated the services desire to have DLA provide more support to them and discussions spurred by MSC visits help produce solutions that move us forward.

Smith shared some objectives his Energy team is working that are designed to meet the warfighter’s growing needs. With a common understanding of the unique logistics issues challenging DLA operations, there was unanimity on the important role that successful logistics operations play in the operational readiness and success of our nation’s services.

Palmer summarized the orientation when he said that efficient logistics serve as the lynchpin to any successful military engagement.

After the Land and Maritime orientation, Smith toured the installation and made a short stop at the Continuity of Operations facility to receive a briefing on their contingency operations to conclude his visit.
#### Tatiana Nedeltcheva et al., Appellants, v MTE Transportation Corp. et al., Respondents.

[66 NYS3d 127]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), entered August 10, 2016, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment, and granted defendants’ cross motion to the extent of directing plaintiffs to accept defendants’ answer and, sua sponte, deeming it timely filed and served nunc pro tunc, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs were not entitled to a default judgment because the affidavits of service of the summons and complaint indicate that service was not effectuated at the proper address (CPLR 3215 [f]). In any event, the motion for a default judgment was also properly denied since it was unsupported by a complaint or affidavit sworn to by a person with personal knowledge of the facts in this personal injury action *(see Saks v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*302 AD2d 213 [1st Dept 2003]). The court also exercised its discretion in a provident manner in directing that plaintiffs accept service of defendants’ answer in light of the approximate one-month delay in service of an answer, a lack of showing of prejudice to plaintiffs, and considering the deficiencies in the service of process *(see Yu v Vantage Mgt. Servs., LLC,*85 AD3d 564 [1st Dept 2011]; *Scott v Allstate Ins. Co.,*124 AD2d 481, 484 [1st Dept 1986]). Furthermore, as noted by the motion court, there is a strong public policy in this state is to resolve disputes on the merits *(see Arrington v Bronx Jean Co., Inc.,*76 AD3d 461, 462 [1st Dept *4242010]).

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Gesmer and Oing, JJ.
# Slogan by DLA mechanic to mark agency’s 60th anniversary 

/ Published April 22, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
An automotive mechanic with a penchant for World War I and II history is the winner of the Defense Logistics Agency’s 60th anniversary slogan contest with “Forged by History, Focused on the Future.” 

Kay Teagle of DLA Installation Management Richmond, Virginia, knew little about the agency’s past until she read a blog from previous DLA Chief of Staff Kristin French, now deputy director of DLA Logistics Operations, calling for entries. 

“It was interesting to learn about our origin during World War II and how leaders wanted to centralize logistics for the services to save on resources. It was also cool to know we were forged by history, which became part of my suggested slogan,” Teagle said. 

Milestones like the agency’s designation in 1986 as a Defense Department combat support agency, increasing responsibilities to other federal agencies and the naming of Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic as DLA’s first female director inspired the second half of her slogan: Focused on the Future. 

The agency’s anniversary is Oct. 1 and will be marked starting in July with spotlights on major subordinate commands and directorates on DLA’s website and social media platforms like Facebook, where Teagle’s winning slogan will be prominently displayed.

The contest drew 262 suggestions such as “60 years of diamond-class service” and “60 years strong and getting stronger.” Skubic congratulated Teagle for her winning entry in a surprise announcement during an April 16 visit to DLA activities on Defense Supply Center Richmond.

“I thought she was just going to thank me for my suggestion and was shocked when she said out of all the entries mine was the one that won,” the former soldier said.

Teagle looks forward to learning more about DLA’s history during the celebration and said she hopes to make DLA a long-term career. She joined DLA Installation Management Richmond’s Industrial Equipment Services Section as a general mechanic helper five years ago. 

“I like dealing with customers every day and enjoy fixing their equipment,” she said. “DLA is a great organization and I believe there’s a lot of room for progression. Plus, celebrating our 60th anniversary proves the agency has longevity and has a strong purpose serving people all over the world.”

Skubic presented Teagle a director’s coin for her winning entry.

“It’s a really nice coin. Even when I was in the military, I never got such a high-ranking coin. I took it home to make sure I don’t lose it,” she said.

French attributed DLA’s success to employees throughout the agency who provide logistics, acquisition and technical services.

“Wherever the United States has a significant military presence, DLA is there as well,” she wrote in the blog. “We are America’s combat logistics support agency – our capability, our history and our people are worth celebrating.”
#### In the Matter of Kosciuszko Plaza LLC, Appellant, v New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Respondent.

[55 NYS3d 176]

*521Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered April 27, 2016, which, inter alia, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss as untimely the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated January 13, 2015, denying petitioner’s application for tax benefits under the J-51 Tax Incentive Program, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s letter, dated January 13, 2015, informing petitioner that it had determined that petitioner’s project was ineligible for J-51 benefits was final and binding on petitioner, and the four-month statute of limitations began to run on petitioner’s receipt of it *(see Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. Tech. & Telecom. of City of N.Y.,*5 NY3d 30, 34 [2005]; *Matter of Essex County v Zagata,*91 NY2d 447, 453 [1998]). As petitioner acknowledges, the agency’s rules do not expressly provide for administrative review of the denial of a petition for J-51 benefits. Nor did petitioner’s request for reconsideration and respondent’s rejection of the request extend the statutory limitation period *(Matter of Fiore v Board of Educ. Retirement Sys. of City of N.Y.,*48 AD2d 850 [2d Dept 1975], *affd for the reasons stated*39 NY2d 1016 [1976]; *see also Matter of Baloy v Kelly,*92 AD3d 521 [1st Dept 2012]).

In light of the foregoing, we do not address petitioner’s remaining arguments.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.