alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Demo of circa World War I defense building marks end of one era and beginning of another 

/ Published Oct. 25, 2019

In 1918, the U.S. Army Quartermaster Department established a depot on 851 acres of land in rural New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, based on its proximity to the Susquehanna River and Pennsylvania Railroad. Now, after 101 years of service, the last original warehouse structure from that era is being demolished.

Created as depot headquarters under President Woodrow Wilson, building A1 was constructed at the cost of $296,000 (more than $5 million in today’s dollars). While the Army Depot construction was not finished until the end of World War I, the depot was a major hub for logistics and military reception center during World War II.

In the 101 years that followed, building A1 served multiple functions including base commissary, warehouse and the Morale, Welfare and Recreation facility. In recent years, however, the building has become increasingly less efficient and more costly, falling well behind modern building codes and standards. According to Johnathan Tassone, supervisor construction control representative for DLA Installation Management Susquehanna, the time has come for the outdated structure to be removed to make way for a newer facility.

“Today we are looking at the demolition of building one,” says Tassone, “to make way for a larger, more efficient warehouse to better support the warfighter. In its place we’re going to put a warehouse that practically double its size. It will be up to date, more efficient and will save us money as far as utilities. It will also give the base more space.”

Tassone says the new construction will include the use of environmentally friendly materials and more advance construction features including heated floors to reduce heating, ventilation and air conditioning costs in the winter.

Rob Montefour, site director of DLA Installation Management Susquehanna, says the demolition of A1 marks the end of one era and beginning of another.

“It is the long-term goal to replace all of the WWI and WWII structures and replace them with energy-efficient warehouses,” Montefour says, citing the recent demolition of 140 base housing units that cost more than $1 million per year to maintain. “It’s one way we are fulfilling our oath to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.”
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nicholas P., Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 543]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven L. Barrett, J.), entered August 11, 2016, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Initially, we reject the People’s argument that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that defendant has been deported *(see People v Edwards,*117 AD3d 418 [1st Dept 2014]).

The court’s upward departure to level three was supported by clear and convincing evidence of an aggravating factor not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instru*501ment, and which outweighed the mitigating factors cited by defendant *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841, 861-862 [2014]). While defendant was incarcerated for the underlying offense, he conspired to murder the victim, her mother, and her brother, in order to prevent them from testifying about his sexual abuse. This supported an inference of defendant’s increased risk of sexual recidivism *(see People v Bynum,*140 AD3d 501 [1st Dept 2016]; *People v Winfield,*122 AD3d 488 [1st Dept 2014], *lv denied*24 NY3d 917 [2015]; *People v O’Flaherty,*23 AD3d 237 [1st Dept 2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 705 [2006]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
[62 NYS3d 809]

#### In the Matter of Richard B. Kelly (Admitted as Richard Brett Kelly), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

November 2, 2017

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee,*New York City *(Kathy W. Parrino*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Richard B. Kelly,*respondent pro se.

*26OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Richard B. Kelly was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on June 9, 1993, under the name Richard Brett Kelly. Respondent last maintained a registered address within the First Judicial Department. By order entered January 30, 2017, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 468-a, for failure to maintain his attorney registration.

The Attorney Grievance Committee seeks an order disbarring respondent, pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9 (b), on the grounds that he has been suspended under 22 NYCRR 1240.9 (a) (1) and (3), and has neither responded to or appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of the order of suspension. Respondent was served with this motion to disbar by first-class mail, certified mail return receipt requested, and by email, but no response has been received.

More than six months have elapsed since this Court’s February 16, 2017 order of suspension (2017 NY Slip Op 64550[U]) and respondent has failed to appear or contact the Committee or the Court for a hearing or reinstatement. The basis for respondent’s interim suspension involved, among other things, failure to maintain his attorney registration, pay registration fees, update his residential address with the Office of Court Administration, and failure to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation. In light of the above, respondent should be disbarred *(Matter of Shedrinsky,*152 AD3d 132 [1st Dept 2017]; *Matter of Yoo Rok Jung,*148 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2017]; *Matter of Jones,*148 AD3d 113 [1st Dept 2017]).

Accordingly, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9 (b) is granted, and respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

Friedman, J.R, Richter, Andrias, Gische and Kahn, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof.
# DLA expands DOD additive manufacturing tool in fight against COVID-19

/ Published April 28, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
A Defense Logistics Agency tool that consolidates the Defense Department’s technical data packages for advance manufacturing could be a new weapon in the battle against COVID-19.

The military services are already using the Joint Additive Manufacturing Model Exchange to access a dozen models for critical items like face shields and surgical masks. 

Still in development by DLA, the National Institutes of Health and the military services, JAMMEX lets users download and print models from multiple sources through a single system, said Tony Delgado, additive manufacturing program manager for DLA Information Operations’ Research and Development Division.

“The value proposition is that JAMMEX can be that authoritative source for DOD AM stakeholders, because behind the scenes DLA is making sure that models that go on JAMMEX are approved models, regardless of origin,” he added. 

Work on the additive manufacturing portal began two years after the Office of the Secretary of Defense directed DLA to facilitate the exchange of data between the services. DLA information technology experts and logisticians met with industry and academia representatives in 2018 to understand the technological landscape and gain insights that were critical to the design of the system.  

DLA’s technology accelerator team then worked with DLA functional experts and military users to turn best practices into a prototype, now in development by America Makes, a public-private partnership with member organizations from industry, academia, government, non-government agencies, and workforce and economic development resources. 

Despite ongoing development, the services have used JAMMEX to print spare parts like anti-reflection devices, door handles, drone parts and brackets that would have otherwise cost more and taken longer to procure.  

JAMMEX has the potential to reduce readiness risks, improve responsiveness and decrease costs by providing alternate sources for hard-to-procure and obsolete parts, said Catrina Murphy, DLA additive manufacturing program manager.

“Accelerating the adoption of the military services to load their approved models to JAMMEX, as well as investigating the feasibility of loading vendor-offered proprietary designs to JAMMEX for the military services' organic manufacturing base, are the next steps in propelling JAMMEX to be the DOD AM model authoritative source,” she added.
#### Maritza P., as Mother and Guardian Ad Litem of Ismael Daniel M., an Infant, et al., Respondents, v Devereux Foundation et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[50 NYS3d 268]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about December 17, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ (defendants) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants having satisfied their initial burden on summary judgment, the burden shifted to plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In satisfaction of their burden, plaintiffs offered competent proof in the form of deposition testimony, medical records and police records, which raised triable issues *(see generally N.X. v Cabrini Med. Ctr.,*97 NY2d 247 [2002]; *Kelly G. v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers,*99 AD3d 756 [2d Dept 2012]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos.333-139625 and 333-138679, Form S-4 No. 333-133513, and Form S-8Nos. 333-139624, 333-138680 and 333-127301) and related Prospectusesof EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our reportsdated March 13, 2008, with respect to the financial statements of EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of EPIXPharmaceuticals, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2007.                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP                                       Boston, Massachusetts
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 8469 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NM

- 105

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Modification 6.0 $ 510.00 $0 $ 510.00 

### 5 $ 2,550.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance :

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 2,550



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Cost s:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to expla in warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD hav e a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirem ents for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Geoffrey Smith, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 872]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.), rendered November 2, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see id.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MOCON, Inc. on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert L. Demorest, ChiefExecutive Officer of MOCON, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MOCON,Inc.
| Date: August 14, 2007   |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/ Robert L. Demorest  |   |   |
| Robert L. Demorest      |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Morelli, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 278]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Neil Ross, J.), rendered March 30, 2015, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur — Acosta, J.P, Richter, Andrias, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
1

King, Melanie

From: King, Melanie

Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 5:22 PM

To: 'Higgins, Cortney'

Cc: Elman, Barry; Wayland, Robertj; Schreifels, Jeremy

Subject: RE: EO 12866 review of RIN 2060-AR33 Carbon Pollution Guidelines for EGUs in Indian 

Country and Territories - draft TSD

Hi Cortney, we will make these edits, thanks for sending these comments.

Melanie King

Energy Strategies Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code D243‐01

RTP, NC  27711

Phone:  (919) 541‐2469

Fax:       (919) 541‐5450

king.melanie@epa.gov

From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]  

Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:20 PM

To: King, Melanie

Cc: Elman, Barry; Wayland, Robertj; Schreifels, Jeremy

Subject: RE: EO 12866 review of RIN 2060‐AR33 Carbon Pollution Guidelines for EGUs in Indian Country and Territories ‐ 

draft TSD

Hi Melanie,

Attached you’ll find comments on this TSD and the excel file, the RIA draft from 10/16, and the Supplemental memo for

the reg text.

We’re also reviewing the revised drafts in response to the first round of the interagency comments and I’ll get back to

you early Monday on those.

Regards,

Cortney

From: King, Melanie [mailto:King.Melanie@epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 2:26 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Elman, Barry; Wayland, Robertj; Schreifels, Jeremy 

Subject: EO 12866 review of RIN 2060-AR33 Carbon Pollution Guidelines for EGUs in Indian Country and Territories - 

draft TSD 

Hi Cortney,

The draft TSD for the supplemental proposal is attached.  We're still working to provide a little more detail on

how the goals change with the application of each building block (similar to Appendix 5 in the June proposal's

Goal Computation TSD) and should have an updated version early next week.
2

Melanie King 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Code D243-01 

RTP, NC 27711 

Phone: (919) 541-2469 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

king.melanie@epa.gov
#### James Couri, Appellant, v John Siebert et al., Respondents.

[50 NYS3d 290]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered February 3, 2016, awarding defendants the total sum of $15,091,471.04 as against plaintiff, *599unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 27, 2016, which confirmed the Report and Recommendation of JHO Ira Gammerman recommending that defendants have judgment on their counterclaims against plaintiff in the amount of $7,110,532, with interest from August 18, 2013, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

In a prior order, the court granted defendants’ motion to strike pro se plaintiffs reply to the counterclaims, and directed an inquest assessing damages on the counterclaims, based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with multiple court orders and abuse of the litigation process. Plaintiff failed to perfect an appeal from that order. The JHO held an inquest on December 15, 2014, and after plaintiff, who initially appeared by telephone, declined to further participate, the JHO took defendant’s testimony, and based on that testimony and the record, recommended judgment in favor of defendants.

Under the circumstances here, we find that the recommendation of the JHO was amply supported by the record *(see Matter of Musano,*302 AD2d 302 [1st Dept 2003]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Kahn, JJ.
|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                        
|                                                                                     
|Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                     
|                                                                                     
|Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity  (Million 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 83,592 | 83,592 | 83,592 | 83,592 | 83,592 | 83,592 | 83,592
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 83,592 | 83,592 | 83,592 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-84566, 333-76698,
333-62444 and 333-41782 and Form S-8 Nos. 333-97609, 333-62414, 333-62410, 333-62406, 333-94345,
333-41477 and 333-57879) and related Prospectuses of EPIX Medical, Inc. of our report dated February 12, 2003, with respect to the financial statements of EPIX
Medical, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

|                                     |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------
|Boston, Massachusetts
March 24, 2003 |  |                      

---

QuickLinks