alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Women’s History Month Spotlight: Army Col. Isabel Geiger

/ Published March 12, 2019

*Editor’s note: The Defense Logistics Agency recognizes March as Women’s History Month. In honor of women’s contributions to the agency’s global mission, DLA is highlighting female employees who work day in and day out to provide logistics support to America’s warfighters.*

**My name is:**Army Col. Isabel Geiger

**I am:**The director of operations for the Joint Contingency Acquisition Support Office in DLA Logistics Operations. I’m an Army logistician with more than 23 years of service. I’m also a wife and mom to four young boys. 

**Describe your job in a sentence:**I oversee two deployable mission support teams located at DLA Headquarters and 16 planners embedded with combatant commands, all of whom support warfighter readiness with operational contracting support by assessing and planning commercial support for supplies and services. 

**How long have you worked at DLA?**Since June 2017

**What is your favorite thing about working for DLA?**The people! But the global mission and ability to directly impact capability through readiness is also great. 

**What are your best memories of working here?**When you have an interaction with someone and get them to understand how what you do will ultimately improve their organization. Those “aha” moments really keep me going. 

**How do you make a difference?**I try to make a difference by caring about the team I work for. Although they might report to me, I feel it’s my responsibility to do all I can to care for my team and support a healthy work-life balance. I’d like to think that my team knows I care about them, and that I’ll do as much as possible to support the individual and also accomplish the mission.

**How do you resolve conflict in the workplace and at home?**At work it’s through facilitated discussions with an end state in mind (e.g., in this discussion we want to reach a conclusion or compromise on subject XYZ). I want to show that I’m listening to what others have to say. At home, with four young children, it can be chaotic! I try to remind myself to take the important things seriously and not get too excited about those things that aren’t. I like to let my boys try and resolve their own issues, and I look to carve out individual time with everyone which, admittedly, isn’t easy. 

**What does Women’s History Month mean to you?**It is an occasion to recognize those trailblazers who have sacrificed to make a difference. It means that I stand on the shoulders of those pioneers who have gone before me and I’m grateful for the opportunities it has opened up. It also serves as a reminder that our purpose should be about so much more than just ourselves – we have moments in our lives where we can make a difference, small or large, and we shouldn’t let those moments go unused.
#### Darcy, Matter of, v Darcy

2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1061

denied
#### Thomas v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole

11/10/2015

459 MAL (2015)

Denied
#### X-Act Contracting Corporation, Appellant, v Susan Flanders et al., Respondents.

[50 NYS3d 45]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered December 21, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motions of defendants Susan Flanders and Kenneth L. Kutner and Kenneth L. Kutner d/b/a Law Offices of Kenneth L. Kutner (together, Kutner) to dismiss the abuse of process cause of action against them, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the Kutner defendants’ motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The doctrine of res judicata does not bar the abuse of process claim at issue, since X-Act’s claims do not arise “out of the same transaction or series of transactions” as the prior negligence and breach of contract action against Flanders *(see Zito v Harding,*110 AD3d 628, 629 [1st Dept 2013]). The prior *action*involved a dispute between X-Act and Flanders over X-Act’s work on a renovation project, and the present complaint involves allegations that Kutner obtained a judgment upon a so-ordered stipulation of settlement, based on a false affirmation, and then served restraining notices and refused to vacate the judgment, even after receiving proof of payment. Moreover, there was no point at which X-Act could have asserted the instant claim in the prior Civil Court action, since the case had settled by the time the alleged wrongdoing occurred. Further, in this action, X-Act is not seeking sanctions or attorneys’ fees that have already been recovered, but rather damages proximately flowing from a material misrepresentation in the prior action *(see Melcher v Greenberg Traurig LLP,*135 AD3d 547, 553 [1st Dept 2016]).

The Kutner defendants are not entitled to dismissal of the abuse of process claim on the alternate grounds that the cause of action is not adequately pleaded (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). At the pleading stage, X-Act’s complaint sufficiently states a claim for abuse of process. Kutner’s false affirmation, which served as *519the foundation for obtaining the judgment, taken together with the allegation of malice, suffices to state a cause of action for abuse of process *(see Phillipe v American Express Travel Related Servs. Co.,*174 AD2d 470 [1st Dept 1991]; *see Cunningham v State of New York,*77 AD2d 756, 757 [3d Dept 1980], *mod on other grounds*53 NY2d 851 [1981]). However, the complaint, together with the documentary evidence in the record, is insufficient to sustain the claim against Flanders, particularly in light of X-Act’s assertions in the prior action that Kutner failed to make inquiry of his client before obtaining the judgment.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kahn, JJ.
[Cite as State v. Sizemore, 2018-Ohio-4257.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 CLERMONT COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2018-05-030 

 : D E C I S I O N 

 - vs - 10/22/2018 

 : 

JENNIFER L. SIZEMORE, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. 2017CR00623 

Vincent D. Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas A. Horton, 76 South 

Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for plaintiff-appellee 

Soumyajit Dutta, 3268 Jefferson Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45220, for defendant-appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript 

of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Jennifer L. Sizemore, has filed a brief with 

this court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) 

indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose 
Clermont CA2018-05-030 

any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment 

of error may be predicated; (2) lists three potential errors "that might arguably support the 

appeal," Anders, at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record 

independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and 

without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw 

as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies 

that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason 

that it is wholly frivolous. 

S. POWELL, P.J., RINGLAND and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
### 1 **Regulatory Evaluation**

Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 4474 Directorate Identifier: 2015

- NE

- 34

- AD

Add the work hours, parts cost, and number o f U.S. registered products to the table below. When you are finished, click on the “Update Fields” button to automatically fill in the totals. 

### Updat e Field s

**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 (@$85/ h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 12 $1,020.0 0 0 $1,020.00 763 $778,260.00
$ 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 $ 0.00 $ 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

The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 778,260 Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

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

Inspection $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

### 2

**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 explain 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 have 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 

### :

### 3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Norgado Vazquez, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 347]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), *602entered February 9, 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.

The People obtained records of defendant’s prison sex offender treatment by serving a subpoena on the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision that was neither court-ordered nor on notice to defendant. However, we find that, to the extent there was any violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub L 104-191, 110 US Stat 1936) and its accompanying privacy rules (45 CFR parts 160, 164), there is no basis for a remand for further proceedings.

In a letter to the court requesting a downward departure from his presumptive risk level, defendant relied heavily on his completion of sex offender treatment as a mitigating factor, specifically asserting that the treatment changed his outlook and behavior, and caused him to accept responsibility for the sex crimes he committed against two children. Accordingly, although defendant did not rely on the treatment records themselves, he affirmatively put his treatment in issue and thus waived his claim that the records were improperly obtained *(see Matter of State of N.Y. Off. of Mental Health v Dennis J.,*126 AD3d 537, 537-538 [1st Dept 2015]; *Matter of State of New York v Enrique T.,*114 AD3d 618, 619 [1st Dept 2014], *appeal dismissed*23 NY3d 1011 [2014]).

In any event, we find that any error was harmless. The treatment records contained evidence that defendant continued to blame one or both of his child victims for the crimes he committed, and failed to truly accept responsibility. However, defendant, who was assessed an undisputed 125 points, was assessed no points for failing to accept responsibility. Furthermore, the court had ample grounds on which to deny a downward departure, and its remarks, when viewed as a whole, indicate that the records contributed little or nothing to its sound determination.

In light of the foregoing, we find it unnecessary to reach the People’s other arguments for affirmance.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Andrias and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. LAURENN HARVIN, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 406 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 4th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angelika Dotsenko, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 640]

Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered June 24, 2004, convicting her of murder in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, (2) from an amended judgment of the same court rendered June 28, 2012, resentencing the defendant to include a period of postrelease supervision, and (3), by permission, from an order of the same court entered December 23, 2015, which denied, without a hearing, her motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

Ordered that the judgment, the amended judgment, and the order are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly declined her request to charge the jury that a prose-. cution witness was an accomplice whose testimony required corroboration. An accomplice is a witness who may reasonably be considered to have “participated in the offense charged or an offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged” *(People v Caban,*5 NY3d 143, 153 [2005]; *see*CPL 60.22 [2]). Where differing *1147inferences may reasonably be drawn as to whether a witness participated in the offenses, an accomplice-in-fact instruction must be given *(see People v Sage,*23 NY3d 16, 23-24 [2014]). Here, there is no evidence from which it can be reasonably inferred that the witness participated in the planning or the execution of the crimes *(see People v Jones,*73 NY2d 902, 903 [1989]). Her mere presence at the time of the shooting, without more, did not constitute a reasonable basis for the jury to conclude that she was an accomplice *(see People v Anderson,*118 AD3d 1138, 1144 [2014]).

Contrary to the defendant’s further contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive. Although the defendant received a greater sentence than that of the codefendant, who was sentenced on a negotiated plea, a discrepancy between the sentence imposed on a codefendant after a negotiated plea, and one imposed on a defendant who proceeds to trial, does not, without more, indicate that the latter is being punished for exercising the right to proceed to trial *(see People v Bryant,*82 AD3d 1114, 1115 [2011]; *People v Murad,*55 AD3d 754, 756 [2008]; *People v Taylor,*155 AD2d 630 [1989]; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Finally, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10. The People did not commit a *Brady*violation *{Brady v Maryland,*373 US 83 [1963]) by failing to turn over the transcript of the plea proceeding of her accomplice *(see People v Rivera,*82 AD3d 1590 [2011]; *People v Singleton,*1 AD3d 1020 [2003]). Moreover, that transcript did not constitute newly discovered evidence *(see People v Backus,*129 AD3d 1621, 1623 [2015]).

Dillon, J.P., Austin, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31(b)
 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual
report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Herman F. Dick, Jr.

Herman F. Dick, Jr.
Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer
 62
No. 12-7863.

#### Brown *v.*Louisiana.

Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14205]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-34, 507]


CSI Services, Incorporated, Martinsville, VA; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on May 4, 1998, in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on behalf of workers at CSI Services, Incorporated, 
Martinsville, Virginia, employed at E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, 
Incorporated, Martinsville, Virginia.
    A certification applicable to workers at E.I. du Pont de Nemours & 
Company, Incorporated, Martinsville, Virginia, was issued on May 12, 
1998, and is currently in effect (TA-W-34, 386). That certification 
included the petitioning group of workers of CSI Services employed at 
the E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company facility in Martinsville. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, D.C. this 15th day of May, 1998.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-14205 Filed 5-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
# Air Force medical officer ‘knows it’s time’ to end 20-year career 

/ Published April 16, 2019
PHILADELPHIA, 
In front of family, friends and peers, an Air Force Medical Service Corps officer transitioned into the next chapter of his life: retirement.

Lt. Col. Roger Willis, Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Medical supply chain’s Institutional Customer Facing Division chief, retired from the Air Force after 20 years of service during a ceremony April 12 in Philadelphia.

Willis thanked those in attendance for their friendships and mentorships throughout his career, and explained how he knew it was time to call it a career.

“I’ve known a lot of people that retire, and I always ask, ‘How do you know,’ and it’s always, ‘When it’s time you’ll know,’” Willis said. “So, I can honestly say that I know it’s time.”

The presiding officer, Air Force Col. Mary Ann Garbowski, Air Force Medical Operations Agency Medical Logistics director, highlighted the accomplishments, resilience and mindset throughout Willis’ career.

“[Lt. Col. Willis] will tell you that his philosophy is simple,” Garbowski said. “He always did his best, treated everyone with respect, accepted assignments from leadership and put the needs of other airmen first.”

Before Willis commissioned into the Air Force in 1999, he also served two years in the Naval Reserves.

While assigned to Troop Support, Willis was responsible for supporting 246 Department of Defense medical facilities worldwide.

As part of his farewell, Willis received the Defense Meritorious Service Medal for his service.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14074]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-220-000]


Enron Energy Services, Inc. Enron Capital & Trade Resources 
Corp.; Notice of Petition For Limited Waiver

May 21, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 15, 1998, Enron Energy Services, Inc. (EES) 
and Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. (ECT) (collectively 
Petitioners) tendered for filing a petition for limited waiver of 
Section 284.243 of the Commission's regulations and related Commission 
policy pursuant to Rule 101(e) and 207 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure.
    Petitioners seek a limited waiver of the Commission's regulations 
regarding the assignment of capacity and the Commission's general 
policy that a shipper of natural gas on an interstate pipeline must 
have title to the gas being shipped from the point of receipt to the 
point of delivery. Petitioners request that the waiver apply only to 
their transfers of title in transit to Petitioners' sales customers in 
New York State served by any of five interstate pipelines, CNG 
Transmission Corporation (CNG), Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation 
(Columbia), National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (NFG), Tennessee Gas 
Pipeline Company (Tennessee), and Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco).
    Due to the adverse competitive situation created in New York State 
as a result of our competitors' interpretation of the ``shippers must 
have title'' policy and the Commission's capacity release regulations, 
Petitioners request expedited Commission action on this request in 
order to permit Petitoners to utilize the same marketing mechanisms 
being used by their competitors.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC. 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before May 28, 1998. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-14074 Filed 5-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M