alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Ohio Airmen celebrate 72 years of aerial support

/ Published Sept. 20, 2019
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
The senior Air Force officer in command of The Ohio State University’s Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps highlighted the Defense Federal Community’s 72nd Air Force birthday Sept. 18 at the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Operations Center Auditorium.

Col. Kevin Cullen, the university’s professor of aerospace studies, delivered the keynote address to a crowd of active, retired and veteran Airmen serving at the Central Ohio logistics hub.

“Today we celebrate 72 years of heritage, 72 years of heroes, 72 years of victories and 72 years of sacrifice,” Cullen said. “Our Air Force story and the birth of aviation began just a few miles away with two bicycle mechanics and an airplane.”

Those bicycle mechanics were brothers Wilbur and Orville Wright, who worked in a Dayton, Ohio, bicycle shop where historians believe they researched, designed and created the first powered aircraft before launching it at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, in 1903. Congress officially declared Ohio as the birthplace of aviation in 2003 in recognition of the Wright brother’s roots.

Cullen shared with the audience that breaking barriers takes innovation and top talent and tied the day’s military celebration to a Constitution Day observance the day before which honored another group of innovators – the country’s founders.

Cullen also spoke of key moments in his 27-year career and what he’s learned as OSU’s senior Airman tasked with leading the cadre responsible for developing high quality leaders for the Air Force. The ceremony marked Cullen’s final birthday celebration as an active-duty Airman. 

Following the remarks, Cullen joined DLA Land and Maritime’s Chief of Staff, Air Force Col. Janette Ketchum, for a cake-cutting with a ceremonial military sword.

Ketchum concluded the program and presented a framed poster to Cullen for his participation.

“The Air Force birthday, like all of our military celebrations, serves to remind us of where we came from and help us better appreciate the sacrifices of those who went before us,” she said.

Master of ceremonies Air Force Master Sgt. Scott Seymour narrated the event and Air Force Maj. Jody Schweickart provided National Anthem vocals. Seymour is a business process analyst with DLA Land and Maritime and Schweickart is the wing executive officer for the 121st Air Refueling Wing at Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base.
#### Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., Appellant, v Everest National Insurance Company, Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 356]-

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered May 27, 2016, to the extent it granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment declaring that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action, and so declared, and denied plaintiff’s and third-party defendant’s cross motions for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Notification to defendant of the underlying accident ap*421proximately four months after plaintiff learned of the accident does not comply with the requirement of the insurance policy that defendant be notified of an occurrence “as soon as practicable”; it constitutes late notice as a matter of law *(see e.g. Peerless Ins. Co. v Nationwide Ins. Co.,*12 AD2d 602 [1st Dept 1960]). Even if plaintiff and nonparty Enterprise Capital Partners were distinct entities, Enterprise’s knowledge of the underlying accident, which occurred in August 2007, is imputed to plaintiff. Plaintiff had no employees of its own, but paid the salaries of Enterprise employees who worked on its behalf. One of these employees was present at the August 30, 2007 construction meeting at which the underlying injury was reported; another’s written statement said that he was a principal of plaintiff. Yet, defendant did not receive notice of the occurrence and claim until December 28, 2007.

Defendant’s disclaimer of coverage on the ground of late notice was reasonable and timely. It was issued to plaintiff on January 29, 2008, two weeks after defendant received the written statement in connection with its investigation *(see Ace Packing Co., Inc. v Campbell Solberg Assoc., Inc.,*41 AD3d 12, 15 [1st Dept 2007]). The disclaimer also was sufficiently specific in its explanation, stating, “Coverage is denied based upon your violation of the notice provisions and conditions of the policy since the loss was not reported to [defendant] as soon as practicable” *(see Paul M. Maintenance, Inc. v Transcontinental Ins. Co.,*300 AD2d 209, 212 [1st Dept 2002]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.
# L_2011168EN.01001101.xml

| 28.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 168/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 168/11

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/376/CFSP

of 27 June 2011

implementing Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof, in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Treaty on European Union,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP.

| (2) | In view of the developments in Côte d'Ivoire, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP should be amended, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In view of the developments in Côte d'Ivoire, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP should be amended,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 27 June 2011.

For the Council

The President

MARTONYI J.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 285, 30.10.2010, p. 28.

1

---

ANNEX

Entities referred to in Article 1

| 1. | APROCANCI (Côte d'Ivoire Association of Natural Rubber Producers) |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | SOGEPE (National Electricity Management) |
| 3. | RTI (Ivorian Radio and Television) |

1.

APROCANCI (Côte d'Ivoire Association of Natural Rubber Producers)

2.

SOGEPE (National Electricity Management)

3.

RTI (Ivorian Radio and Television)

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason Diaz, Appellant.

[56 NYS3d 40]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juan M. Merchan, J., at suppression hearing; Ronald A. Zweibel, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered April 4, 2013, convicting defendant of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 15 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The record does not reflect that the court read or showed a jury note to the parties or afforded them an opportunity to provide input before the court responded to the note, and it cannot be presumed that the court complied with CPL 310.30 in a preceding off-the-record conference *(see People v Silva,*24 NY3d 294, 299-300 [2014]; *People v Walston,*23 NY3d 986, 990 [2014]). Although defendant’s challenge to the court’s handling of the note is concededly unpreserved, the court failed to comply with the core requirements of *People v O'Rama*(78 NY2d 270 [1991]), which constitutes a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal *(see id.*at 279-280; *see also People v Tabb,*13 NY3d *539852 [2009]; *People v Robinson,*144 AD3d 40 [1st Dept 2016]). Since the note, along with all other jury notes in this case, have been lost, it is impossible to determine whether the court read the note verbatim in court when it gave its supplemental instruction. Moreover, the phrasing of the court’s description of the note is consistent with it having been a paraphrase or summary of the note. Therefore, the preservation requirement set forth in *People v Nealon*(26 NY3d 152, 154 [2015]) does not apply.

Since we are remanding for a new trial, we find it unnecessary to consider defendant’s remaining arguments, except that we find that defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied *(see e.g. People v Montague,*175 AD2d 54 [1st Dept 1991]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
2017-0557.

#### State v. Boles.

Montgomery App. No. 18762. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-22-0000488

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

IN THE MATTER OF THE HELEN-EDYTHE RICHARDSON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 1987,

AS AMENDED AND RESTATED

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(TRUST NO. 1CTR-21-0000043)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that: (1) The statement of jurisdiction and opening brief were due on or before October 10, 2022, and November 9, 2022, respectively;

(2) Petitioner/Objector-Appellant Ninia RichardsonAldrich, and Objectors/Interested Parties-Appellants George Naoi Richardson and Neil Maunakea Richardson (Appellants) failed to file either document, or request an extension of time;

(3) On November 10, 2022, the appellate clerk entered a default notice informing Appellants that the time for filing the statement of jurisdiction and opening brief had expired, the matter would be called to the court's attention on November 21, 2022, for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of the appeal, under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules 12.1(e) and 30, and Appellants could request relief from default by motion; and Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-22-0000488 18-MAY-2023 08:19 AM Dkt. 16 ODSDNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) Appellants have not taken any further action in this appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, May 18, 2023. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge

2
SHAWN THOMAS STULLER

,
Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 213

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 19, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. John L. Miller

, Judge

.

Jason T. Forman, Fort Lauderdale , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General

, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, C.J., LEWIS

, and WINSOR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
# L_2010191EN.01001101.xml

| 23.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 191/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 191/11

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 651/2010

of 22 July 2010

granting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 20 July 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 20 July 2010.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 20 July 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the products and destinations referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 1 and in Article 2 of that Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 July 2010.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 2010.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.

3

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6885** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JAMES RODRIKUS MCGOWAN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Dist rict of South Carolina , at Greenville
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 6:06

- cr - 00989

- HMH

- 1; 6:10

- cv - 70267

- HMH )

Submitted : October 18, 2011 Decided: October 21, 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by u n published per curiam opinion
. James Rodrikus McGowan, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James Rodrikus McGowan seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 47 3, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debata ble claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McGowan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the app eal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
#### Huffer, Matter of, v Nesconset Fire Dist.

3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1039

denied
#### Tao Niu, Respondent, v Sasha Realty LLC, Appellant.

[56 NYS3d 91]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered June 23, 2016, which denied defendants Sasha Realty LLC and Beach Lane Management, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss plaintiff’s claims based on violations of Multiple Dwelling Law § 52 and the 1938 Building Code of City of New York (Administrative Code of City of NY) § C26-292.0 (g) (3), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries he sustained when, as he was descending the staircase from the rooftop of defendants’ building, the landing he stepped on collapsed, causing him to fall.

Initially, we note that the 1938 Building Code of City of New York (Administrative Code of City of NY) § C26-292.0 (g) (3) and Multiple Dwelling Law § 52 are inapplicable to this case. Although the subject staircase led to a rooftop, that rooftop was not an “exit” as defined in Administrative Code § 27-232, *489since it did not lead to a street or public space, and was not dedicated to public use *(see DeRosa v City of New York,*30 AD3d 323, 326 [1st Dept 2006]).

However, defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that they lacked constructive notice of the alleged defective condition. The building manager testified that he would inspect the building about two to three times a day, looking for property damage such as broken windows or handrails. However, he did not testify that he would inspect the building’s stairs or its landings, or when he last did so. This testimony was insufficient to show that defendants lacked constructive notice of the defective condition *(see Joachim v AMC Multi-Cinema, Inc.,*129 AD3d 433, 434 [1st Dept 2015]; *Ross v Betty G. Reader Revocable Trust,*86 AD3d 419, 421 [1st Dept 2011]).

Defendant’s contention that the condition of the landing was latent since the reinforcement underneath would not have been discoverable upon a reasonable inspection, was refuted by plaintiff’s expert who averred that the type of landing through which plaintiff fell was required to be regularly inspected and maintained, and that an inspection of the landing would have shown that it was susceptible to collapse. This was sufficient to raise an issue of fact *(see Perez v 2305 Univ. Ave., LLC,*78 AD3d 462, 463 [1st Dept 2010]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
# PaCE program grads represent the next generation of DLA leaders

/ Published Oct. 28, 2019
Richmond, Va., 
More than 40 Defense Logistics Agency Aviation employees who were students in the Pathways to Career Excellence program were recognized Oct. 23 during a graduation held in their honor at the Frank B. Lotts Conference Center on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia.

The students represent two classes of Pacers, as they are known, who began the program in March and August 2017. Through the PaCE program, students fulfilled internships in contracting, product, resolution, customer account, and material planning specialists’ roles.

Pam Latker, chief, DLA Human Resources Services, DLA Training Career Management Division delivered opening remarks at the ceremony. The ceremony keynote speaker was James “Travis” Beasley, director, Supplier Operations Original Equipment Manufacturer Directorate, DLA Aviation.

Beasley presented the local graduates with their certificates; Oklahoma City PaCE graduate Nathan Sholund received his certificate via video teleconference from Michael Carroll, chief, F100/TF33 Engines Contracting Branch, DLA Aviation at Oklahoma City; and Warner Robins PaCE graduates Adrienne Collins and Gerald Fuller were presented with their certificates via teleconference by Army Col. Todd Bean, commander, DLA Aviation at Warner Robins, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia.

The DLA PaCE program is a two-year program that’s designed to train entry-level personnel with advancement to the journey-level general schedule [GS-7 targeted to GS-11]. Interns are trained through classroom, virtual and web-based instruction, as well as on-the-job instruction, cross training and rotational assignments.

For more information on the PaCE program through DLA, visit http://www.hr.dla.mil/career/programs/PaCE/
Exhibit 32.2

           Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)
                           and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
     (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Robert G. Costantini,  as Chief Financial  Officer of First Aviation Services
Inc. (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 (as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002),  that  to my
knowledge:

(1)  the  accompanying  Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal
     year ended January 31, 2005 (the "Report"),  filed with the U.S. Securities
     and Exchange  Commission,  fully complies with the  requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated:  May 2, 2005


                                                     /s/ Robert G. Costantini
                                                     Robert G. Costantini
                                                     Chief Financial Officer