alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA disposal team in Guam assists aircraft carrier during extended stay

/ Published Aug. 13, 2020
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
The property disposal team at the Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services site in Guam provided sustained pier-side assistance to deployed sailors this summer as members of the USS Theodore Roosevelt crew quarantined on the island from late March into May.

The aircraft carrier was diverted to Guam March 26 after sailors began testing positive for COVID-19. While portions of the ship’s crew sheltered in place at area hotels, some sailors stayed behind to prepare the vessel for resumption of its Western Pacific cruise.

Disposal Services Representatives Faron Washington and Edward Forbes were among DLA employees standing by to help prepare the carrier for additional months on the water.

“[We] remained in constant contact with key logistics personnel aboard the ship,” Washington said, adding that disposal workers made multiple appointments to help sailors turn in 60 types of equipment from the ship, including 5,000 pounds of aircraft tires, aircraft fairings, valve assemblies and drained fuel tanks. Tens of thousands of protective masks were also provided to the ship from DLA excess property in Ohio.

The ship’s sailors and its beach detachment followed Defense Department and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines by properly palletizing the equipment, shrink wrapping it and placing plastic shrouds over every container. 

“Upon turn in, our receivers downloaded the pallets and purposefully left the property outside to ‘bake’ in the very hot Guam sun,” Washington said. “With zero cases of COVID-19 among our Guam personnel, it appears we erred on the side of caution and correctly accepted the ship’s material.”

Site Manager Eric Mills, a Navy Reserve officer who was pulled away from the office by official orders to support the ship in uniform, praised his team’s responsiveness.

“Our efforts assisted the ship’s logistical mission and its ability to get back under way while maintaining COVID-19 mitigation strategies,” Mills said. 

According to a 7th Fleet statement, the ship’s sailors manned the rails upon the vessel’s departure in June as a “gesture of gratitude and thanksgiving” to honor the people of Guam and the civilians and service members who supported the crew during its stay.
# Deadline for Real ID compliance 10 months away

/ Published Dec. 3, 2019
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, 
The Department of Homeland Security reminds travelers that Real ID enforcement will start in just 10 months. Beginning Oct. 1, 2020, every airline passenger must present a Real ID-compliant driver’s license, state-issued enhanced driver’s license, or another acceptable form of identification, such as a valid passport or military ID, to fly within the United States. 

Those without proper ID will not be permitted to enter Transportation Security Administration checkpoints and will not be allowed to fly. 

The Real ID Act of 2005 sets minimum security standards for license issuance and prohibits federal agencies from accepting IDs that don’t meet those standards. Defense Department-issued IDs, including the Common Access Card and dependent and retiree IDs, are already compliant with the Real ID Act. 

Three states – Oregon, Oklahoma and New Jersey – are still working to produce and issue compliant driver’s licenses, according to the DHS website, and as of Oct. 1, 2019, only 27% of Americans had been issued a Real ID.

Additional guidelines are available at www.tsa.gov.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50267

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAUL ARTURO HERRERA-OCHOA,

also known as Martin David Gomez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-01-CR-1923-ALL-DB 

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

August 21, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raul Arturo Herrera-Ochoa appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He

contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the

two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). Herrera-Ochoa complains that his sentence was

improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on

his prior removal following an aggravated felony conviction. He
No. 02-50267 

-2-

argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process

Clause. Alternatively, Herrera-Ochoa contends that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He

argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his

increased sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Herrera-Ochoa acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
DUAL SCREW LENGTHS PROVIDED TO

ACCOMODATE MULTIPLE BLADE THICKNESSES(2) M3 x 0.5 x 11.25MM(2) M3 x 0.5 x 13.75MM

612458

AB

C

D

8 7 6 5 4 3 

8 7 65 4 3 

E

F

57134

8

AND CONTINUAL MAINTENANCE TO THESE CRITICAL 

IN ADDITION, M3 NYLON-INSERT LOCKN

THE SOCKET HEAD SHOULDER CAP SCREWS DURING 

DUAL SCREW LENGTHS PROVIDED TOACCOMODATE MULTIPLE BLADE THICKNESSES(3) M3 x 0.5 x 11.25MM(3) M3 x 0.5 x 13.75MM

STEP 1

THE SCREWS INTERNALLY FOR SIMPLE-INSTALLATIOINTO THE PROVIDED COUNTERBORES BEFORE THE UALUMINUM UPPER PLATE AND LOWER BASE. INSTALTHE CUSTOM CNC MACHINED FLAT WASHERS IN THE STEP 1: ASSEMBLE THE DUAL- OR TRIPLE-PROPELLDIAMETERS. AND PERFORMANCE - A MAJOR PERFORMANCE BENESTANDARD TWO-BLADE SETUPS, OR UPGRADE TO THPROPELLER ADAPTERS ARE AVAILABLE; PROVIDING NOTE: THE KDE DIRECT XF MULTI-ROTOR SERIES PRQUALITY FOLDING-PROPELLER ASSEMBLY FOR MULTFOR APPROPRIATE PROPELLER LEAD-LAG ROTATION TO ALL HARDWARE DURING ASSEMBLY. FULLY TIGH

KDEXF-DPA, KDEXF-TPA-V2 (AL 6061-T6)KDE DIRECT XF MULTI-ROTOR SERIES PROPELLER ADAPTERS

STEP 2

INSTALL PROPELLER ADAPTER TO XF MULTI-ROTOR BRUSHLESS MOTOR

BRUSHLESS MOTOR, MAKING SURE TO APPLY MEDIU

: ASSEMBLE THE DUAL- OR TRIPLE-PROPELLE

STEP 2

ASSEMBLE XF MULTI-ROTOR SERIES PROPELLER ADAPTER

DUAL THREAD MOUNTINGDUAL-PROPELLER VERSION

TRIPLE THREAD MOUNTINGTRIPLE-PROPELLER VERSION

ITEM NO. DESC

1 M3 x 0.5 x 11.25MM/13.75MM SOCKET H

(CUSTOM CNC MACHINED) 

2 KDE DIRECT XF MULTI-ROTOR SERIES DUA

3 KDE DIRECT XF MULTI-ROTOR SERIES TRIP4 M3 x 7.95MM x 0.75MM ABS ROUND-HO

(CUSTOM CNC MACHINED) 

5 M3 x 0.5 x 8MM SOCKET HEAD CAP SCR6 KDE DIRECT XF MULTI-ROTOR SERIES DUA

7 KDE DIRECT XF MULTI-ROTOR SERIES TRIP8 M3 x 0.5 NYLON-INSERT LOCKNUT (CLAS9 KDE DIRECT 4014XF-380 MULTI-ROTOR B

(SHOWN AS REFERENCE, SOLD-SEPARAT

HOLES ARE PROVIDED FOR SIMPLEINSTALLATION TO BRUSHLESS MOTOR(CAPTURED M3 SOCKET HEADCAP SCREWS INTERNALLY)

TRIPLE-PROPELLER VERSIONTRIPLE THREAD MOUNTING

APPLY MEDIUM-STRENGTHLOCTITE (BLUE 243 OR EQUIVALENT)TO MOUNTING SCREWS

9

HOLES ARE PROVIDED FOR SIMPLEINSTALLATION TO BRUSHLESS MOTOR(CAPTURED M3 SOCKET HEADCAP SCREWS INTERNALLY)

DUAL-PROPELLER VERSION

8

TRIPLE-PROPELLER VERSIONDUAL THREAD MOUNTINGALTERNATE (V2)

1

3475

HOLES ARE PROVIDED FOR SIMPLEINSTALLATION TO BRUSHLESS MOTOR(CAPTURED M3 SOCKET HEADCAP SCREWS INTERNALLY)

TRIPLE-PROPELLER VERSIONDUAL THREAD MOUNTINGALTERNATE (V2)
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00158-CV

Samotta Richardson-Wiggins

v.

AH4R Properties Two, LLC.

§

§

§

§

From County Court at Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2014-005204-1)

February 11, 2016

Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Sue Walker___________________

 Justice Sue Walker
161 A.3d 763

#### NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, PLAINTIFF-MOVANT, v. A.B., DEFENDANT. IN THE MATTER OF A.F., MINOR.

March 9, 2017

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion for leave to file an answering brief as within time is granted.
#### New York City School Construction Authority, Appellant, v Ennead Architects LLP, Respondent.

[49 NYS3d 462]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered January 15, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on statute of limitations grounds, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

On this CPLR 3211 (a) (5) motion, defendant did not meet its initial burden of “establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to sue has expired” *(Benn v Benn,*82 AD3d 548, 548 [1st Dept 2011]). A cause of action to recover damages against an architect for professional malpractice is governed by a three-year statute of limitations, which accrues upon “termination of the professional relationship” — that is, when it “completes its performance of significant (i.e. non-ministerial) duties under the parties’ contract” *(Sendar Dev. Co., LLC v CMA Design Studio P.C.,*68 AD3d 500, 503 [1st Dept 2009]). As this action was brought on February 27, 2015, plaintiff’s claims were timely so long as they accrued on or after February 27, 2012.

Here, defendant continued to carry out its contractual duties well after February of 2012 by, for example, assisting plaintiff with obtaining a final certificate of occupancy *(see e.g. Serradilla v Lords Corp.,*50 AD3d 345, 346 [1st Dept 2008]). Defendant was contractually obligated to review “as built” drawings under the relevant agreement, which it continued to do after February of 2012 *(Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas v EnergyPro Constr. Partners,*271 AD2d 233, 234 [1st Dept *6192000]). The provisions of the parties’ contract that the IAS court relied upon in determining that the parties’ relationship ended in 2009 when the work was “substantially completed” were at best ambiguous, and certainly not sufficient to satisfy defendant’s threshold burden of establishing untimeliness *(Benn,*82 AD3d at 548; *Rosalie Estates v Colonia Ins. Co.,*227 AD2d 335, 336 [1st Dept 1996]).

As an alternative holding, we conclude that the continuous representation doctrine toll applies, at least with respect to defendant’s attempts after February 2012 to remedy the faulty design of the custom etched-glass windows *(City of New York v Castro-Bianco, Piscioneri & Assoc.,*222 AD2d 226, 227-228 [1st Dept 1995]). Defendant does not dispute that it performed these services within three years of the action being commenced.

Concur — Richter, J.R, Mazzarelli, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
**Exhibit 23.01**

**Independent Auditors’ Consent**

The Board of Directors Macrovision Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-101071, 333-110271, 333-49404 and 333-49390) on Form S-8 of Macrovision Corporation of our report dated March 12, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Macrovision Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Macrovision Corporation.

Our report contains an explanatory paragraph that refers to the Company’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, *Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets*, on January 1, 2002.

|   | /s/ KPMG LLP |
|--------|--------------|

Mountain View, California March 12, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1511]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


California Coast Province Advisory Committee (PAC)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The California Coast Province Advisory Committee (PAC) will 
meet on February 4 and 5, 1998, at Humboldt State University, Agate 
Room in the Jolly Giant Commons, in Arcata, CA. The meeting will be 
held from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each day. Humboldt State University is 
located in 1 Harpst Street in Arcata. Agenda items to be covered 
include: (1) Subcommittee meetings; (2) Work on the Ground Subcommittee 
report and recommendations; (3) Panel discussion and recommendations on 
old growth standards and guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan; (4) 
Recreation/Tourism Subcommittee report; (5) Public/Private/Tribal 
Partnership Opportunities Subcommittee report and recommendations; (6) 
Presentation on air quality standards and impacts on fuels management; 
(7) Monitoring Subcommittee report and recommendations; (8) 
Presentation on Pacific Southwest Research fuels research proposal; (9) 
Report and recommendations from the PAC/SCERT coordinating committee; 
(10) Presentation on community based outreach; (11) PAC and agency 
updates; and (12) Open public forum. All California Coast Province 
Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens 
are encouraged to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct questions regarding this meeting to Daniel Chisholm, USDA, 
Forest Supervisor, Mendocino National Forest, 825 N. Humboldt Avenue, 
Willows, CA 95988, (530) 934-3316 or Phebe Brown, Province Coordinator, 
USDA, Mendocino National Forest, 825 N. Humboldt Avenue, Willows, CA 
95988, (530) 934-3316.

    Dated: January 15, 1998.
Arthur Quintana,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 98-1511 Filed 1-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-FK-M
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 2442** 

LA’TILA D. ABBOTT ,
P laintiff

- Appell ant ,

v.
MARKETSTAR CORP. , Defendant

- Appell ee , and
PHILLIPE AQUILINA; MARKETING WERKS; CYNTHIA SNOOT; ROSALIN H. HALL

- SMITH; EEOC , Defendant s .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at R ichmond

. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3 :1 3

- cv - 0 0143

- HEH

- MHL )

Submitted : March 25 , 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN , and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

La’Tila D. Abbott , Appellant Pro Se

. Michael Eugene Blue, RAY, QUINNEY & NEBEKER, PC, Salt Lake City, Utah; Tillman J. Breckenridge, REED SMITH, LLP, Washi ngton, DC; Betty S. W. Graumlich, Robert Miltz Luck, III, REED SMITH, LLP, Richmond,2 Virginia , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
La’Tila D. Abbott appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing her civil action alleging employment discrimination.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Abbott v. Marketstar Corp. , No. 3:13

- cv - 00143

- HEH

- MHL (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 2013 )

. We deny Abbott’s pending petitions for mandamus, for a jury trial, and to enjoin a non

- party from filing documents in this appeal, and her pending motion to suppress, and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequatel y presented in the materials
before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
|                                                                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                  
|View History:                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Turkiye (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Turkiye (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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 21.53  | 18.09  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
# Robins Frontlines: Michelle Waters

/ Published June 23, 2020
ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, Ga., 
Michelle Waters, Defense Logistics Agency distribution process worker, moves critical items through the distribution process amidst the fight against COVID-19.

DLA Distribution Warner Robins, Ga., is one of four strategic distribution platforms under DLA Distribution and distributes supplies to all branches of the military at locations all around the world. More than half the work completed at the distribution center is in support of the Warner Robins Air Logistics Complex.

For all you do at Team Robins ... Thank You!*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Robins Air Force Base website.*
No. 12-8065.

#### Mellerson *v.*United States District Court for the Western District of New York.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
497 P.2d 843

#### UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY CO., a corporation, Appellant, v. HEFLIN STEEL SUPPLY CO., an Arizona corporation, Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CIV 1689.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A.

June 6, 1972.

Rehearing Denied July 6, 1972.

Review Denied Sept. 12, 1972.

Moore, Romley, Robbins & Green, by Robert A. Scheffing, Phoenix, for appellant.

Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes, P. C, by F. Pendleton Gaines, III, Phoenix, for ap-pellee.

*337.CASE, Judge.

United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., defendant in the trial court, appeals from a judgment in favor of Heflin Steel Supply Co., plaintiff in the trial court.

Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

Plaintiff brought suit against Burleson Construction Co., Inc., to recover the sum of approximately $4,000.00 for certain products delivered in connection with a construction contract and to recover from defendant the sum of $2,000.00 as Burleson’s surety on a contractor’s license bond. Service was obtained upon defendant by leaving copies of the summons and complaint with the Insurance Department of Arizona. No answer was filed by defendant and, accordingly, on 1 May 1970, Heflin obtained an entry of default. Defendant did not become aware of the lawsuit, nor the entry of default until 8 May 1970. Thereafter, on 12 May 1970 defendant moved to set aside the entry of default. On 7 August 1970 the Honorable Roger G. Strand, Judge of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, by minute entry, denied the motion. Thereafter, on 8 December 1970 formal written judgment was entered by the Honorable Douglas H. Clark, Court Commissioner, and it is from that judgment that this appeal is taken.

Defendant urges that the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the entry of default because it had a meritorious defense, had not received actual notice of the lawsuit and had never received the summons and complaint from its statutory agent. We find it unnecessary to discuss the merits of defendant’s argument since we are compelled to dismiss the appeal.

No motion was filed by defendant after entry of default judgment. It did not move to set aside the default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(c), 16 A.R.S., or for mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect under Rule 60(c). Our Supreme Court in the case of Byrer v. A. B. Robbs Trust Company, 105 Ariz. 457, 466 P.2d 751 (1970), held:

> “It is clear under the settled decisions of this Court that no appeal lies challenging the entry of a judgment on default unless the appealing party first moves under Rule 55(c) to set aside the judgment.”

Defendant contends that it would have been a fruitless effort to have filed such a motion since the grounds thereof would have been the same as it had urged in its motion to set aside the entry of default. We do not agree.

> “ . . . the trial court should be given the opportunity for further reflection and to exercise a more mature judgment lest litigation be unduly prolonged and unnecessarily expensive.” Byrer v. A. B. Robbs Trust Company, 466 P.2d at 752.

The appeal is dismissed.

STEVENS, P. J., and DONOFRIO, J., concur.