alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. 1789

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

An Act

To amend title 23, United States Code, to permit the use of funds under the

highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program for seismic retrofit of

bridges, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SEISMIC RETROFIT OF BRIDGES.

Section 144 of title 23, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in the third sentence of subsection (d), by inserting

before the period at the end the following: ‘‘, except that a

State may carry out a project for seismic retrofit of a bridge

under this section without regard to whether the bridge is

eligible for replacement or rehabilitation under this section’’;

and

(2) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following

new sentence: ‘‘The use of funds authorized under this section

to carry out a project for the seismic retrofit of a bridge shall

not affect the apportionment of funds under this section.’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Heather Breault, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 683]

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), rendered April 23, 2014, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree, criminal solicitation in the third degree and petit larceny.

In exchange for the statutory minimum prison term, defend*1549ant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging her with burglary in the second degree, criminal solicitation in the third degree and petit larceny, and waived her right to appeal. In accordance with the plea agreement, County Court sentenced defendant to concurrent prison terms that resulted in an aggregate maximum of 3x/2 years, followed by IV2 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Initially, we agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal was not valid. County Court did not apprise defendant “that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” *(People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; *see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; *People v Mitchell,*144 AD3d 1327, 1328 [2016]). Further, a review of the lengthy written plea agreement—in which the waiver of the right to appeal is effectively buried—does not reflect that defendant initialed the section waiving her appellate rights, and, further, does not distinguish the separate and distinct nature of the appeal waiver from the trial-related rights being forfeited. As such, we do not find that “defendant understood the content or consequences of the appeal waiver” *(People v Herbert,*147 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; *see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d at 264).

Defendant further contends that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Defendant’s claims in this regard— including that neither of her attorneys diligently investigated the law or facts surrounding the charges, sufficiently communicated with her or advised her of applicable defenses— primarily concern matters outside of the record and, therefore, are more properly the subject of a CPL article 440 motion *(see People v Lewis,*143 AD3d 1183, 1185 [2016]). Defendant’s remaining assertions with respect to her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel are unpreserved as the record does not reflect that she made an appropriate postallocution motion *(see id.*at 1185; *People v Soprano,*135 AD3d 1243, 1243 [2016], *lv denied*27 NY3d 1007 [2016]; *People v Smalls,*128 AD3d 1281, 1282 [2015], *lv denied*27 NY3d 1006 [2016]). Finally, defendant’s challenge to the sentence as harsh and excessive is without merit given that she received the minimum term of imprisonment for the violent felony offense of burglary in the second degree *(see*Penal Law § 70.02 [3] [b]).

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

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
No. 12-8805.

#### Spence *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# US EPA Region 1 

# GIS Center Tribal 

# Land Dataset

The

# US EPA Region 1 maintains a dataset of Tribal Native American lands in the 

## New England region This dataset

### was created by gathering available data from the Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau 

### ofLand Management 

## US Census 

## TIGER files 

## MASSGIS and the tribes themselves 

### The 

## EPA updates this dataset 

### on an as needed basis 

### when new information about the location of tribal lands 

### becomes available 

## EPA notes that there are 

### some disputes over the exact boundaries 

### ofthe territories ofthe 

### Maine Indian tribes 

### The data layerwhich identifies tribal lands in

## New England is not 

### meant to announce the Federal Government's final position as to any ofthose disputes EPA's use ofthis data layer is not a formal delineation 

### ofthe 

### Maine Indian tribes reservations or trust 

### lands and circulation of this data layer is not a final 

### Agency action concerning any ofthe disputes over these boundaries 

### The Agency has simply attempted to collect readily available information about the location 

### oftribal lands so that 

## EPA employees can focus their preliminaryinquiries about environmental issues in and around tribal lands in

## New England
Friday January 

## 162015 Gordon Hamilton 

## Team Lead Senior

### GIS Analyst Contractor Vistronix
#### Lindsay-Thompson v Montefiore Med. Ctr.

1st Dept: 147 AD3d 638

denied
#### Valeriy Yampolskiy, Appellant, v Judith L. Baron et al., Respondents.

[53 NYS3d 677]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated December 12, 2014, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident and denied his cross motion to preclude the defendants from offering expert evidence in support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision denying that motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.

“[A] party’s failure to disclose its experts pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) prior to the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness does not divest a court of the discretion to consider an affirmation or affidavit submitted by that party’s experts in the context of a timely motion for summary judgment” *(Rivers v Birnbaum,*102 AD3d 26, 31 [2012]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied *796the plaintiff’s cross motion to preclude the expert materials submitted by the defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment, as there was no evidence that the failure to disclose the experts was intentional or willful, and there was no showing of prejudice to the plaintiff (see *Begley v City of New York,*111 AD3d 5, 36 [2013]; *Salcedo v Weng Qu Ju,*106 AD3d 977, 978 [2013]; *Hayden v Gordon,*91 AD3d 819, 820 [2012]).

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see *Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The papers submitted by the defendants failed to adequately address the plaintiff’s claim, set forth in his bill of particulars, that he sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the subject accident *(see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff,*90 AD3d 969 [2011]; *Rouach v Betts,*71 AD3d 977 [2010]; *cf. Calucci v Baker,*299 AD2d 897 [2002]). Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see *Che Hong Kim v Kossoff,*90 AD3d at 969). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Connolly, JJ., concur.
# Distribution’s Dawa presented commander’s coin

/ Published March 13, 2019
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
DLA Distribution’s Diana Dawa, public affairs specialist, received a commander’s coin during DLA Distribution Commanding Officer Navy Rear Adm. Kevin M. Jones’ employee recognition walkabout event Feb. 26.

Dawa has been assisting with the creation of DLA Distribution’s command videos.  While the task is not in her job description, she jumped in to order the necessary equipment — including camera, lights, filters and teleprompter. 

“Diana drew on her nine years of field experience as a broadcast journalist for U.S. Army Europe and has been setting up a professional video recording set within Rear Adm. Jones’ office,” said Dawn Bonsell, DLA Distribution public affairs officer. “She also works with him to make him comfortable in front of the camera and talks him through specifics of video messaging.”
From: Bodner, Paul [mailto:Paul.Bodner@ct.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:02 PM

To: Simcox, Alison

Cc: Farrell, Paul

Subject: RE: OWF statute

Hi Alison,

DEEP would like to withdraw the statute (CGS 22a-174k) from consideration for the PM2.5 SIP. DEEP is 

actively trying to get the statute revised for multiple reasons, including:

1) To include mandatory emission limits based on EPA’s voluntary Hydronic Heaters Program

(currently the statute addresses only setback distance, stack height and operating practices);

2) There is a flaw in the statute that could result in a period of time when OWF’s are unregulated.

In CGS 22a-174k(b), the statute specifies “No person shall, from July 8, 2005, to the effective 

date of regulations promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to 

regulate outdoor wood-burning furnaces, construct, install, establish, modify, operate or use an 

outdoor wood-burning furnace, unless ...”. When EPA issues a regulation there will likely be a 

lag period between the date the EPA regulation becomes effective and the date that EPA’s 

required emission limits must be implemented. During this period, neither the CT statute nor 

the EPA emission limits would apply.

It is also worth noting that withdrawal of the statute from the SIP approval will not change any of the 

emission estimates presented in the PM2.5 Maintenance Plan, since no emission benefit was calculated 

for the statute.

Hopefully this provides enough information to move forward with the redesignation without including 

the OWF statute in the SIP approval.

Thanks.

Paul

Paul Bodner

Planning & Standards Division

Bureau of Air Management

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-5127

P: 860-424-3383 | F: 860-706-5339 | E: paul.bodner@ct.gov
#### KJ, Matter of, v New York City Hous. Auth.

1st Dept: 146 AD3d 694

denied*

*

 Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Odom, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 235]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), rendered January 30, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree.

Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted course of sexual conduct against a *1485child in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant in accordance with its sentencing commitment to a prison term of two years, followed by four years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive given, among other things, his remorse and acceptance of responsibility for the crime. However, defendant’s unchallenged waiver of the right to appeal precludes our review of this contention *(see People v Guzman-Moore,*144 AD3d 1267, 1268 [2016], *lv denied*29 NY3d 949 [2017]; *People v Perkins,*140 AD3d 1401, 1403 [2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 1126 [2016]).

Lynch, J.P., Devine, Clark, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
2017-1152.

#### Allen v. Haviland.

In Mandamus. On respondent’s motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.
#### Sandra Morrison-Allen, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[54 NYS3d 877]—

*510In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for the wrongful termination of her parental rights, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Marin, J.), dated November 23, 2015, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) and Court of Claims Act §§ 9 and 10 to dismiss the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To the extent that the subject claim is predicated on allegations that the claimant was wrongfully involuntarily committed for psychiatric evaluation pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 (a), the time within which to file such a claim would have been two years from the date on which her involuntary commitment came to an end *(see Boland v State of New York,*30 NY2d 337, 341-342 [1972]; Court of Claims Act § 10 [5]). As the claimant was released on November 23, 2005, and this claim was not filed until nearly 10 years later, it follows that any claim predicated on the alleged wrongful commitment is time-barred.

The remainder of the subject claim alleges, inter alia, that the Family Court, Queens County, wrongfully terminated the claimant’s parental rights in 2013 *(see Matter of Stephen Daniel A. [Sandra M.],*122 AD3d 837 [2014]). Contrary to the claimant’s contention, the Court of Claims does not have the authority to review the merits of the Family Court’s determination. Moreover, any acts done in the exercise of judicial functions by the Family Court Judge or court personnel are cloaked with immunity and, thus, cannot form the basis for a claim for damages against the State *(see Best v State of New York,*116 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2014]; *Rosenstein v State of New York,*37 AD3d 208 [2007]; *Swain v State of New York,*294 AD2d 956, 957 [2002]; *Welch v State of New York,*203 AD2d 80, 81 [1994]; *Mullen v State of New York,*122 AD2d 300, 301 [1986]).

Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) and Court of Claims Act §§ 9 and 10 to dismiss the claim.

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.
DLA Indo-Pacific regional command supports Keen Edge, Pacific Sentry
 
  By Lt. Col. Troy Johnson, DLA Indo-Pacific Operations Chief
  On Jan. 23, 15 logistics planners from various Defense Logistics Agency entities, Logistics Operations Energy, Aviation, Land & Maritime, Troop Support, Distribution and Disposition Services, converged upon the DLA Indo-Pacific Synchronization Operations Center at Camp Smith, Hawaii, to formulate the nucleus of the DLA IP concepts of logistics support to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command Tier 1 Exercise, Keen Edge and Pacific Sentry 2020-2 (KE/PS20-2). The Hawaii team was supplemented by six additional planners from DLA J3 Joint Contingency Acquisition Support Office and DLA Energy in Japan to establish the DLA Liaison/Forward Coordination Element to United States Forces Japan at Yokota Air Base, Japan. Together, and for the next seven days of exercise execution, the team, comprised of uniformed and civilian professionals, operated a 24-hour battle rhythm validating the ability to enable a regional command and control that synchronized the Agency’s agile capability to meet the demands of a regional Combatant Command/Tier-1, Combined, Bilateral Command Post Exercise. Navy Captain Kristin Acquavella, DLA Indo-Pacific Commander acknowledged the team’s collective contributions to the KE/PS20-2 underscoring both the exercise and region’s relevance to the National Defense Strategy, stating “it’s pretty cool when we take a step back and look at the scope and breath of USINDOPACOM’s area of responsibility, which is home to 50% of the world’s population, half the world’s surface with 16 different time zones and 36 individual countries.” She added, “now, put this team in the middle of supporting that and it’s pretty awesome.” Acquavella thanked everyone for their collective professionalism, expertise and value-added inputs that ensured the successful execution and outcome of the exercise. Exercise augmented team members included CDR Christopher Lewis, LCDR Mario Porter, LCDR Sandranell Moerbe, Maj Yevgeniy Malashenok, Capt. Michael Ricci, LT Trimeka Thomas, TSgt Griselda Hewett, SSG Sirlen Arriaza, CPO Rodriglio Aglibot, Craig Barrett, Mike Elwell, Joshua Stanley, Ken Murphy, Herman Roberts, Amos Moses, Chris Rollins, Steve Park, David Moore, John Tartala and Amy McGrath.
2017-1793.

#### State ex rel. Richland Cty. Children Servs. v. Richland Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. On relators’ application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Dominican Republic  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Dominican Republic  (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 5.41   | 4.15   | 3.91   | 4.51  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5.78   | 7.75   | 12.56  | 10.36  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
# Commander visits Navy customers and DLA Aviation-Cherry Point employees

/ Published Aug. 23, 2019
Richmond, Va. , 
Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. David Sanford traveled south Aug. 13-14 to visit with Navy customers on Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina, and with DLA Aviation-Cherry Point employees.  It was his first visit since assuming command of DLA Aviation in July.

Navy Cmdr. Keith Klemm, DLA Aviation-Cherry Point industrial support activity commander, was pleased to be one of the first ISAs to host a visit with the new commander.

Sanford first met with Navy Capt. Mark Nieto, commanding officer, Fleet Readiness Center East and James Ogburn, senior civilian for FRC East, Aug. 13. The next morning, he toured FRC’s depot production lines and DLA Aviation facilities.

Upon completion of the tours, aviation employees welcomed the commander and proceeded to immerse him in briefings outlining their mission supporting retail-level supply for FRC East, the Navy aviation maintenance and repair depot at Cherry Point.

Klemm shared that the general said he walked away with a greater understanding of how the Navy executes depot-level component and aircraft workload, from induction to sale. 

That afternoon, Sanford hosted a town hall recognizing employees and sharing his values and vision.

Sanford told employees he has a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault and harassment in the workplace, and stressed the importance of work/life balance and supporting each other. 

Supporting each other also translates to supporting the warfighter, he said. The agency’s first line of effort-warfighter first-isn’t possible without everyone working together. 

Sanford put emphasis on the importance of collaboration with customers and suppliers, and delivering on promises.

“It is important that we expose and close any vulnerabilities in our supply chains,” he said.