alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Teamwork recharges disposal process

/ Published April 17, 2019
Thumrait Air Base, Oman , 
After more than a year, lead acid batteries used to support U.S. operations in Oman are being disposed of again thanks to new capabilities there and teamwork between two of the Defense Logistics Agency’s major subordinate commands.

Vickie Rodgers, DLA Disposition Services’ Central region deputy director, said the availability of a new contractor and a new type of disposal is allowing in-country disposal versus shipping batteries to Germany, “and the beauty is that we are going to use the DLA Energy representative in Oman to be the DLA face at the removal.”

Benjamin Beadles serves as a DLA Energy liaison there and conducted the lead acid battery facility inspection for DLA Disposition Services. The inspection allowed the contractor to be added to the Qualified Facilities List, making the company eligible for the contract. Beadles said the inspection visit went well, and the operations manager was helpful.

“He explained their licenses and permits and walked me through the process from start to finish, Beadles said. “Although it’s a local requirement, it is nice to see they went a bit above standards with their closed system to capture and process industrial run-off.”

Environmental Protection Specialist Calvin Taylor said the 14,319 pounds of batteries disposed of was a first for DLA in Oman. The capability arose after a 13-month delay waiting for authority to export the material for disposal. During that wait, an in-country disposal option became available for lead acid batteries.

“Before the in-country disposal option, batteries were shipped to Germany, and on average had a seven to nine month turn around for disposal,” Taylor said. “Previously, shipping for disposal would have cost $7,200 ..., but with in-country disposal the cost is only $800 for transportation, saving our customers $6,400.”

Taylor explained that the new option also means the batteries can be recycled through a state of the art smelting and recoverable process. The process involves draining the acid, breaking down the battery and loading the parts into a separation unit. The lead to be processed is obtained in two forms after the separation; one form is the pure lead (poles and terminals) and the grids while the other form is the lead paste mixed in the electrolyte. Smelting and refining are used to eliminate impurities and increase the quality of the lead produced.

When it was time for the March 26 pickup, Beadles said that also went well. He said the contractors operating the support area at Oman’s Thumrait Air Base went above and beyond to rush base access passes, which is normally a two week process. They were also instrumental in “the expedient loading of the transportation sub-contractor’s tractor-trailer.”
#### In the Matter of People of the State of New York, Respondent, v PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Respondent, and Exxon Mobil Corporation, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 626]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered on or about October 26, 2016, which granted the petition of New York State Attorney General (NYAG) to compel respondent Exxon Mobile Corporation (Exxon) and its independent auditor, respondent PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP (PwC), to comply with a subpoena duces tecum served on PwC, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this proceeding arising from an underlying investigation *579by the NYAG into alleged fraud by respondent Exxon concerning its published climate change information, the motion court properly found that the New York law on privilege, rather than Texas law, applies, and that New York does not recognize an accountant-client privilege.

We reject Exxon’s argument that an interest-balancing analysis is required to decide which state’s choice of law should govern the evidentiary privilege. Our current case law requires that when we are deciding privilege issues, we apply the law of the place where the evidence will be introduced at trial, or the place where the discovery proceeding is located (JP *Morgan Chase & Co. v Indian Harbor Ins. Co.,*98 AD3d 18, 25 [1st Dept 2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 858 [2013], citing *People v Greenberg,*50 AD3d 195, 198 [2008], *lv dismissed*10 NY3d 894 [2008]). In light of our conclusion that New York law applies, we need not decide how this issue would be decided under Texas law.

We have considered Exxon’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
Exhibit No. 32.4   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with this report of Questar Pipeline Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A, Amendment No. 2 for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Kevin W. Hadlock, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  QUESTAR PIPELINE COMPANY   September 19, 2011 /s/Kevin W. Hadlock Kevin W. Hadlock Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason Aponte, Appellant.

[60 NYS3d 809]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered March 4, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification, including its evaluation of alleged inconsistencies in testimony and motives to falsify. The jury could have reasonably found that there were satisfactory explanations for changes in the victim’s account of the incident, and that cell phone records did not cast doubt on his testimony.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick, Kern and Singh, JJ.
VI

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 213

For the relief of Ikechukwu J. Ogujiofor, Joy I. Ogujiofor, and Godfrey

I. Ogujiofor.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 26 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. AKAKA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Ikechukwu J. Ogujiofor, Joy I. Ogujiofor,

and Godfrey I. Ogujiofor.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, in the administration of the Immigration and Na4 tionality Act, Ikechukwu J. Ogujiofor, Joy I. Ogujiofor,

5 and Godfrey I. Ogujiofor shall be held and considered to

6 have been lawfully admitted to the United States for per7 manent residence as of the date of the enactment of this

8 Act upon payment of the required visa fees. Upon the

9 granting of permanent residence to such aliens as provided

10 for in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the
2

•S 213 IS

1 proper officer to reduce by the proper number, during the

2 current fiscal year or the fiscal year next following, the

3 total number of immigrant visas which are available to na4 tives of the country of the aliens’ birth under section

5 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if appli6 cable, the total number of immigrant visas which are made

7 available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth

8 under section 202(e) of such Act.

Æ
|                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                         
|View History:                                                                                          
|                                                                                                       
|No chart available.                                                                                    
|No chart available.                                                                                    
|                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                       
|Price of Corpus Christi, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Thailand (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                       

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2021                                                                                                                              |     |     |     | W   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     | W   | W   | W   |     |     | W   | W  
|2024                                                                                                                              |     |     |     | W   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

ANTHONY LANE, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

WASHINGTON COUNTY COURT OF 

COMMON PLEAS, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 19 WM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 24th day of April, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001027342
<NAME>                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST I
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                           DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-25-1998
<CASH>                                             0
<SECURITIES>                             283,505,200
<RECEIVABLES>                              5,492,913
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         288,998,113
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           288,998,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      5,492,913
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                              275,000,000
<COMMON>                                   8,505,200
<OTHER-SE>                                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             288,998,113
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          21,971,652
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           21,971,652
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       21,971,652
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              21,971,652
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0
        


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 99-50440

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

MARIA DEL ROSARIO PORRAS-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas

(P-99-CR-7-ALL) May 5, 2000

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed essentially for

the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough order of March

17, 1999.

AFFIRMED.
#### Eurotech Construction Corp., Appellant-Respondent, v Fischetti & Pesce, LLP, Respondent-Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 231]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered January 17, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the legal malpractice claim, and granted the motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty and breach of implied contract claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint alleges that defendant failed to ensure that plaintiff gave timely notice to its excess carrier that the primary insurer’s limits were likely to be exhausted in connection with the underlying personal injury claim. Conceding the general principle that a law firm may have an obligation to investigate insurance coverage (see *Shaya B. Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP,*38 AD3d 34, 40-41 [2d Dept 2006]), defendant argues that it should not bear that burden in this case, because plaintiff had been advised by its insurer’s third-party administrator to notify its excess carrier of the claim and had not done so. However, as the motion court observed, the issue is not what plaintiff knew but whether its attorneys committed malpractice by not providing timely information obtained from the deposition testimony or bills of particular in the underlying action. Resolution of that issue depends on facts not yet developed *(see id.*at 41).

The breach of fiduciary duty and breach of implied contract claims are premised on the same facts and seek the same relief as the legal malpractice claim, and were therefore correctly dismissed as duplicative *(see Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc.,*10 AD3d 267, 271 [1st Dept 2004]).

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.R, Andrias, Gische, Kern and Singh, JJ.
#### Com. v. Pollard 17

08/30/2016

155 MAL (2016)

17

. Justice MUNDY did not participate in the decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 136 A.3d 1039
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          I, Coley L. Bailey, Chief Executive Officer of Mississippi Chemical Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, dated as of May 19, 2004, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.

          I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
159 A.3d 889

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. LAWRENCE PIPPINS, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 1, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted limited to the issue of defendant’s term of parole supervision and denied as to all other issues. The matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for correction of the judgment of conviction to reflect a three-year term of parole supervision. Jurisdiction is not retained.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60294 Summary Calendar

LARRY LEE JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, of Franklin County, Mississippi; JAMES NEWMAN, Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:97-CV-323-LN

- - - - - - - - - - April 28, 1999 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Larry Lee Jones, Mississippi prisoner #19614, appeals from the grant of summary judgment for the defendants in his prisoner’s civil rights action. Jones contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment for the Board of Supervisors and for Sheriff James Newman in his official capacity because the defendants should be liable for Sheriff Newman’s abuse of his policy-making capacity. He argues that a list of dates written by Sheriff Newman created a genuine issue ofNo. 98-60294 -2- material fact regarding when Sheriff Newman knew of the injury to his (Jones’s) hand and therefore of his need for medical treatment. Jones finally contends that the district court deprived him of his right to a jury trial by granting summary judgment for the defendants. Regarding Jones’s medical-care claims, we have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on those claims for essentially the same reasons as relied upon by the district court. See Jones v. Bd. of Supervisors , No. 3:97- CV-323-LN (S.D. Miss. Apr. 16, 1998). Finally, Jones’s right to a jury trial was not violated by the grant of summary judgment. Plaisance v. Phelps , 845 F.2d 107, 108 (5th Cir. 1988).
AFFIRMED.
#### Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Devicaris

11/17/2015

330, 331 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 1066
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14563]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: The Operations and Regulations Committee of the Legal 
Services Corporation Board of Directors will meet on June 12, 1998. The 
meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and continue until the committee 
concludes its agenda.

LOCATION: Legal Services Corporation, 750 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20002.

STATUS OF MEETING: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Approval of agenda.
    2. Approval of minutes of the committee's meeting of April 5, 1998.
    3. Consider public comment on and act on proposed final rule 
setting out Procedures for Disclosure of Information under the Freedom 
of Information Act, 45 CFR Part 1602, to recommend to the Board of 
Directors for its consideration and adoption.
    4. Consider and act on proposed rule 45 CFR Part 1641, Debarment, 
Suspension and Removal of Recipient Auditors.
    5. Consider and act on other business.

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Victor M. Fortuno, General Counsel and 
Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 336-8810.

SPECIAL NEEDS: Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in 
alternate formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments. 
Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to attend 
the meeting may notify the Office of the General Counsel at (202) 336-
8810.

    Dated: May 28, 1998.
Victor M. Fortuno,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-14563 Filed 5-28-98; 2:30 pm]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
#### King Range, Plaintiff, v The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York et al., Defendants. (And *516A Third-Party Action.) The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York et al., Second Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Total Safety Consulting, L.L.C., Second Third-Party Defendant, and City Safety Compliance Corp., Second Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (And Other Actions.)

[54 NYS3d 391]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered June 13, 2016, which, inter alia, denied second third-party defendant City Safety Compliance Corp.’s motion to dismiss the second third-party complaint as against it or, in the alternative, to sever that complaint from the main action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found that City Safety’s substantial rights would not be prejudiced by its claimed lack of opportunity for meaningful discovery, in view of its ability to review existing discovery and obtain any required additional discovery “while this case makes its way up the trial calendar” *(see Marbilla, LLC v 143/145 Lexington LLC,*116 AD3d 544 [1st Dept 2014]). Nor, as the motion court found, has City Safety been prejudiced by the delay in the commencement of the second third-party action. The note of issue was filed April 23, 2015. The second third-party complaint was filed September 22, 2015, after it “became evident” to defendants’ counsel, on September 9, 2015, when they received expert disclosure from plaintiffs’ counsel, that they had a cause of action against City Safety. Even if there was a delay, it did not rise to the level of the knowing and deliberate delay by the defendants in *Skolnick v Max Connor, LLC*(89 AD3d 443 [1st Dept 2011]), on which City Safety relies. Moreover, the issues of law and fact involved in the main and second third-party actions are intertwined, since the inspection of the job site by second third-party defendants was integral to plaintiffs’ liability claims *(see Sichel v Community Synagogue,*256 AD2d 276 [1st Dept 1998]). It is also likely that almost all the same witnesses will be required *(see Williams v Property Servs.,*6 AD3d 255, 256 [1st Dept 2004]).

City Safety’s remaining contention, that it will be prejudiced by having the issues of indemnity and insurance tried before the jury that will consider the underlying liability claims, is unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.R, Richter, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.