alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# 8th LRS fuels the mission 

/ Published April 7, 2020
KUNSAN AIR BASE, Republic of Korea, 
The 8th Logistics Readiness Squadron fuels management flight’s mission is to verify the quality of all fuel that comes in and out of the base to ensure the Wolf Pack is always mission ready.The 8th LRS fuels management flight is made up of six sections. Cryogenics, which stores the liquid nitrogen and oxygen that the pilots use; distribution, which gets the fuel to the aircraft and hydrant systems; storage, which stores all of the fuel on base; laboratory, which tests and samples the fuel; the fuels control center, the focal point and brains behind the fuels distribution process; and lastly, the preventative maintenance team, that coordinates with refueling maintenance. All of these distinct sections work together to provide quality fuel and oxygen for the Wolf Pack’s F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft.“We exist to get fuel onto the aircraft,” said Staff Sgt. Jeffrey Laporte, 8th LRS fuels distribution NCO in charge. “We provide the life blood to the aircraft to get it in the air in order for pilots to accomplish their mission.”The process begins when fuel arrives at Kunsan Air Base from refineries and is received at the fuels facilities. The fuel is then subject to a filtration process prior to being distributed to aircraft. Part of the filtration process in the lab includes using a “fizzy sample” which bonds to the water in jet fuel to prevent the water from freezing. Fuels laboratory technicians then verify that all of their tanks, refueling units and fuel assets are maintaining the overall quality of the fuel.“As fuels laboratory professionals, our mission is to verify the quality of the fuel,” said Tech. Sgt. Quincy Moore, 8th LRS fuels laboratory NCO in charge. “We perform monthly sediment and water tests on our refueling units. It’s designed to grab the sample and verify the fuel’s quality.”Fuels management flight is also responsible for storing and distributing of liquid oxygen in the cryogenics section, which is another crucial component of getting the pilot in the air. The oxygen they store and distributes allows pilots to breathe clean and fresh oxygen during flight and ultimately, safely reach high altitudes.The 8th LRS fuels management flight plays a vital role in providing Wolf Pack aircraft with contaminant-free fuel and pilots with clean oxygen, at any given time, to ensure mission readiness.*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Kunsan Air Base website.*
Order entered March 14, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 00262 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF T .C., A.C., J.D., AND K.J., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JC - 17 - 00829 - W



### O RDER Before the Court is the March 11, 2019 request of Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre for an extension of time to file a corrected clerk’s record. The corrected clerk’ s record was filed on March 12, 2019. Accordingly, we DENY the request as moot.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
* Pursuant to 5

TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5

TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 00-50446

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL JON HANNEMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-00-CR-9-ALL-SS

January 8, 2002

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

MichaelJon Hanneman appeals from his conviction of making false statements to a firearms

dealer and unlawful receipt and possession of a firearm while subject to a restraining order against

committing family violence. Hanneman contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) violates the Second
-2-

Amendment and the Commerce Clause. Section 922(g)(8) does not violate the Second Amendment,

United States v. Emerson, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Oct. 16, 2001), 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 22386,

*146, nor doesit violate the Commerce Clause. United States v. Pierson, 139 F.3d 501, 503-04 (5th

Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<LEGEND>               THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                       EXTRACTED FROM ANR PIPELINE COMPANY FORM 10-Q
                       QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
                       AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                       FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>           1,000,000

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          1
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 201
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                    27
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              248
<PP&E>                                      3,486
<DEPRECIATION>                              2,188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         165
<BONDS>                                       498
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                    748
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,672
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              334
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             24
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               113
<INCOME-TAX>                                   42
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            71
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   71
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0


</TABLE>
ANNUAL REPORT
Chevy Chase Auto Receivables Trust 1996-2
$ 321,422,909 5.90% Auto Receivables Backed Certificates
For the Year Ended December 31, 1998




         PRINCIPAL    INTEREST      NET       NET        30 +      DELQ.
            DIST        DIST       LOSSES    LOSS %     DELQ.        %
        ____________ ___________ ___________ ________ ____________ _______
 Jan-98   8,300,059   2,026,124     857,441    3.97%   11,893,103    5.67%
 Feb-98   8,301,362   1,998,376     707,609    5.13%   10,669,098    5.93%
 Mar-98   8,090,562   1,760,025     761,897    4.41%    9,587,081    5.53%
 Apr-98   8,919,677   1,751,423     565,704    4.97%    9,306,760    5.21%
 May-98   8,447,788   1,658,134     591,385    3.87%    8,463,719    5.30%
 Jun-98   7,299,838   1,549,613     422,968    4.22%    8,387,381    5.03%
 Jul-98   7,835,269   1,585,520     281,456    3.17%    7,853,610    5.24%
 Aug-98   7,439,801   1,494,564     362,711    2.21%    8,024,815    5.14%
 Sep-98   7,448,057   1,401,429     218,738    3.00%    7,561,460    5.54%
 Oct-98   6,837,011   1,317,128     245,472    1.91%    6,923,382    5.49%
 Nov-98   7,102,637   1,256,949     418,884    2.26%    6,842,620    5.30%
 Dec-98   6,369,609   1,176,099     357,313    4.04%    7,267,811    5.51%
        ____________ ___________ ___________
 Totals  92,391,671  18,975,385   5,791,578

  **  The date represents the month of the Distribution date, the
      information is from activity of the previous month.
No. 09-1370.

#### Brian Mark Burmaster, Petitioner v. United States, et al.

562 U.S. 830, 131 S. Ct. 96,

178 L. Ed. 2d 29,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6370.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14604]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Southeast Region Dealer and Interview Family of Forms.
    Agency Form Number: NOAA 88-12B and 88-30.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0013.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Burden: 2,937 hours.
    Avg. Hours Per Response: Varies by requirement but generally 
between 10 and 15 minutes for completion of forms.
    Needs and Uses: Landing statistics are needed for overall 
information on the trends and conditions in the fisheries managed by 
the Federal and state fishery management agencies. Quota monitoring 
data are needed in a timely manner to determine when and if a quota has 
been reached and the fishery should be closed. Size frequency and age 
data are critical components of good quality stock assessments. The 
information, therefore, is used to determine the overall trends in the 
fisheries.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households, businesses or other 
for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: Monthly, bi-weekly.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker (202) 395-5871.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: May 27, 1998.
Linda Engelmeier,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 98-14604 Filed 6-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
No. 10M11.

#### Prakash Narayan, Petitioner v. City of Sacramento, California, et al.

562 U.S. 819, 131 S. Ct. 374,

178 L. Ed. 2d 11,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6550.

October 4, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
Re: Revised RTR package 

Ken Hustvedt to: Higgins, Cortney, nbeck 09/13/2010 07:23 PM

Cc:

Ann Johnson, Dave Guinnup, Dave Salman, Elaine Manning, Fred Talcott, 

George Woodall, Jan Tierney, Mark Morris, Mary Kissell, Paula Hirtz, Phil Mulrine, 

Randy Mcdonald, Rick Vetter, Sarah Mazur, Stan Durkee, Steve Shedd, Ted 

Palma, Tim Benner, Wendy Blake, Fred Talcott, Peter Tsirigotis, Wendy Blake

Here is the revised version per our discussion today. Due to the timing the rest of Agency has not seen 

these changes.

 RTR Bins12 OMB

ProPkg13Sep10.doc

Ken Hustvedt here is the revised package and a compare v the... 09/11/2010 01:20:00 AM

From: Ken Hustvedt/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, nbeck@omb.eop.gov

Cc: Ann Johnson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Dave Guinnup/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Dave 

Salman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Elaine Manning/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred 

Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, George Woodall/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan 

Tierney/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark Morris/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary 

Kissell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Paula Hirtz/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Phil 

Mulrine/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Randy Mcdonald/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rick 

Vetter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Sarah Mazur/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Stan 

Durkee/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Shedd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ted 

Palma/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tim Benner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Wendy 

Blake/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter 

Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/11/2010 01:20 AM

Subject: Revised RTR package

here is the revised package and a compare v the original one we sent. 

It is not based on the revised Chrome section we sent; the changes reflect our new version that we sent 

earlier. Also, there have been extensive changes to the SSM provisions

Talk to you Monday

KC hustvedt

[attachment "RTR compare 9 10 10.docx" deleted by Ken Hustvedt/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "RTR 

Bins12 OMB ProPkg10Sep10.doc" deleted by Ken Hustvedt/RTP/USEPA/US]
#### Kingston v Cardinal O’Hara High Sch.

4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1672

denied
#### Tawana Coe, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Teranguia Tyus Berton, Deceased, Respondent, v Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc., Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 369]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, etc., the defendant Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Y. Lewis, J.), dated March 27, 2015, as denied that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging negligence insofar as asserted against it for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff’s decedent, Teranguia Tyus Berton, was killed on November 14, 2011, when the vehicle he was driving went off a roadway and collided with a concrete bridge abutment. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death against, among others, *668Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc. (hereinafter Citiwide), from which Berton had rented the vehicle. The complaint alleged that there had been multiple complaints to Citiwide concerning the condition of the vehicle, and that Citiwide’s negligence caused Berton’s injuries. Citiwide made a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging negligence. Citiwide appeals.

On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory *(see Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]; *Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]). Where, as here, evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one *(see Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d at 88; *Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]).

Here, the plaintiff’s allegations, as supplemented by the evi-dentiary material submitted in opposition to Citiwide’s motion, sufficiently alleged that Citiwide was negligent in maintaining the subject vehicle and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Citiwide’s motion which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging negligence insofar as asserted against it.

Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilfred Doumounian, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 281]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered November 26, 2014, 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0287

CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ALLAN GOODMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 30, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 23 2020

09/23/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0287
Aircastle Advisor LLC
                       300 First Stamford Place, 5th Floor
                                Stamford CT 06902

March 8, 2006

Mark Zeidman
c/o Aircastle Advisor LLC
300 First Stamford Place, 5th Floor
Stamford CT  06902

Dear  Mark:

     Reference is made to that certain letter agreement, dated February 3, 2005
(the "Letter Agreement"), between you and Aircastle Investment Limited ("AIL").

1.   By signing this letter, Aircastle Advisor LLC ("AALLC") confirms that it
     has assumed any and all obligations of "Aircastle" or "Company" under the
     Letter Agreement, as amended hereby, and you confirm that Aircastle
     Investment Limited has no obligation or liability under the Letter
     Agreement.

2.   Guaranteed Minimum Bonus.

     The first two paragraphs of "Aircastle Incentive Compensation" in the
     Letter Agreement are hereby deleted and the following is substituted in
     lieu therefor:

     "Subject to the terms of this Letter Agreement, you will be paid a minimum
     annual bonus for the calendar year 2006, which shall be paid to you on or
     prior to January 31, 2007, in an amount not less than $550,000 (the
     "Guaranteed Minimum Bonus")."

3.   Initial Grant.

     On and as of the date hereof you have executed a Restricted Share Agreement
     in respect of certain shares of Aircastle Investment Limited. Accordingly,
     the following provisions are deleted from the Letter Agreement:

     (a)  the "Equity Incentive Plan" paragraph and Exhibit B to the Letter
          Agreement; and

     (b)  in the first paragraph of "Restrictive Covenants", (i) the words and
          figures "twelve (12) months" shall be amended to read "six (6) months"
          in the first sentence thereof and (ii) the words ", Fortress has
          lowered....; or (ii)" shall be deleted from the last sentence thereof.



4.   Miscellaneous.

     Except as expressly set forth herein, the Letter Agreement remains in full
     force and effect, unchanged.

AIRCASTLE ADVISOR LLC


By: /s/ David Walton
    ----------------------------

Accepted and agreed to, this 14th day of March, 2006:

/s/ Mark Zeidman
--------------------------------
Mark Zeidman


                                        2
2017-1091.

#### State ex rel. Gould v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Prohibition. On relator’s application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
June 27, 2013 

# Substance Details Report

1 Page of4 Classifications Molecular Weight Chemical Substance

Coconut oil Chemical Abstracts Index Name

8001-31-8

Unspecified

Extractives and their physically modified derivatives. It consists primarily of the glycerides of the fatty acids capric, lauric, myristic, oleic and palmitic. (Cocos nucifera).

Former CAS Numbers 84961-48-8 8038-08-2 8038-07-1 890903-75-0 Structure

There is no structure Information for this substance. Associated Identifiers EPA Registry Name EPA Registry Name List Substance Status

Systematic Name List Systematic Name Substance Type Core Metadata Internal Tracking Number

Comment/Description

Definition CAS Number

Molecular Formula 156901 Approved

TSN Number EPA Identification Number

Kingdom ICTVDB Preferred AcronymJune 27, 2013 

# Substance Details Report

2 Page of4 Notation T Synonym

Statutes/Regulations

2012 CDR Partial Exempt FIFRA-Inerts TSCA Inv Coconut oil Coconut oil Coconut oil Valid Valid Valid 03/22/2012 

### Statutes/Regulations Synonym Synonym Quality Effective Date End Date

EPA Applications/Systems

CAMEO CAMEO ECOTOX ERNS ERNS ERNS ERNS ERNS ERNS HPVC List HPVIS OPPIN TSCA Inv Syns TSCA Inv Syns TSCA Inv Syns TSCATS TSCATS eIUR Oils, edible: coconut Copra Coconut oil Coconut butter Copra oil Oils, edible, coconut Coconut oil, fatty acid Oil, edible, coconut, fatty acid methyl ester Coconut oil Coconut oil Coconut oil Coconut oil Coconut acidulated soapstock Acidulated coconut soapstock Coconut extract Oil, coconut Coconut oil Coconut oil Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid EPA Application/System Synonym Synonym Quality Effective Date End Date

Other Sources Below are the EPA applications/systems, statues/regulations, or other sources that track or regulate this substance. This table shows how each list refers to the substance.June 27, 2013 

# Substance Details Report

3 Page of4 CA Index CUS02 CUS86 CUS90 CUS94 CUS98 HSDB Coconut oil Coconut oil Coconut oil Coconut oil Coconut oil Coconut oil Coconut oil Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Other Sources Synonym Synonym Quality Effective Date End Date

Ad Hoc List 

### There are no Synonyms of this type. EPA Synonyms 

### There are no Synonyms of this type.June 27, 2013 

# Substance Details Report

4 Page of4 Related References

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oppts/epatscat8.nsf/ReportSearch?OpenAgent&CASNumber=8001-31-8
2016-1749.

#### In re Estate of Faldon.

Erie App. No. E-15-071, 2016-Ohio-7337.

Kennedy, J., dissents.
#### Phister v City of Buffalo

4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1130

denied