alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Veleron Holding, B.V., Individually and as Assignee of OJSC Russian Machines, Appellant, v Morgan Stanley et al., Respondents.

[58 NYS3d 27]

*598Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered August 4, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as barred by the doctrine of res judicata, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The transactions upon which plaintiff’s claim of fraud are premised were the subject of prior claims adjudicated in federal court, and thus this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata *(see O’Brien v City of Syracuse,*54 NY2d 353, 357-358 [1981]; *Elias v Rothschild,*29 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2006]). Indeed, defendants sought removal of this action to join the federal claim, an action that plaintiff opposed, and the federal court, in remanding this matter back to state court, even warned that the action might be subsequently barred by claim preclusion.

Plaintiffs claim that it did not have sufficient knowledge to raise the cause of action when filing the federal complaint is not persuasive in light of that complaint referencing the very allegations that form the basis of this action. The fact that subsequent discovery revealed emails supporting this claim is irrevelant, since the proper inquiry for res judicata purposes is not whether Veleron had enough evidence to prove its claim, but when it had sufficient knowledge to raise the cause of action *(see UBS Sec. LLC v Highland Capital Mgt., L.P.,*86 AD3d 469, 476 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.
2017-0506.

#### Pianowski v. Coleman.

In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.
No. 09-10168.

#### Dick L. Noel, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 843, 131 S. Ct. 76,

178 L. Ed. 2d 52,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6005.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 581 F.3d 490.
# DLA liaison officer earns NORTHCOM trust, kudos

/ Published Sept. 8, 2020
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., 
Before most Americans had heard of COVID-19, Defense Logistics Agency Liaison Officer Ralph Laurie was coordinating the return of thousands of passengers stranded on cruise ships arriving from regions where the virus had already started ravaging populations.

Laurie has spent most of his 19-year DLA career at the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command Headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colorado, which is responsible for global coordination of pandemic influenza response. In late January and early February, Laurie assisted in identifying lodging at military installations for quarantined cruise ship passengers upon the Defense Department’s approval of Department of Health and Human Services’ requests for lodging support.

While NORTHCOM planned how to repatriate those coming in from global hotspots like Europe and Asia, Laurie said it was clear that the United States was becoming a hotspot. He helped ensure both commands were linked to DLA Troop Support for critical items like personal protective equipment and coordinated efforts with DLA’s Agency Synchronization Operations Center.

DLA also supplied the USNS Comfort with over $14 million in personal protective equipment, pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, fuel and food when NORTHCOM deployed the ship to New York City March 30. DLA even supplied mobile hospitals in the city.

“Sustainment requirements were changing constantly,” Laurie said. “We were trying to make sure those units had everything they needed, and of course the big thing early on was PPE.”

Tracking the ever-changing demands was challenging, Laurie said, but he and his on-site DLA Energy counterpart, Gregory Knowles, supported each other by mixing telework and in-office time to ensure a DLA rep was always in the office.

Laurie also credited his supervisor, Executive Director of Operations David Kless, for recognizing the importance of his work.

“I really feel like [Kless] took value from what I was seeing and hearing here and that’s not always the case. Sometimes liaison officers end up being like protocol people,” Laurie said. “There’s a small cadre of people in the ASOC and DLA Troop Support who spent months just getting crushed every day, and a lot of those people probably won’t get recognized.”

NORAD and NORTHCOM leaders honored Laurie’s dedication by presenting him an Army Civilian Service Commendation Medal Sept. 1.

“There was never a time in more than four months of high tempo operations that the NORTHCOM team could not get hold of Ralph and coordinate actions or get answers to important requests for information,” NORAD and NORTHCOM Deputy of Logistics Plans and Operations Craig Dickinson wrote in an email. “We were starting to wonder when he actually slept.”

Laurie added that he believes NORTHCOM values its partnership with DLA.

“DLA is a very trusted partner and that makes what we do a whole lot easier,” he said.
# L_2011156EN.01001201.xml

| 15.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 156/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 156/12

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 11 of 15 January 2011
  )

On page 36, recital 5:

for:

| ‘(5) | On 14 January 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/17/CFSP (3) ...’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(5)

On 14 January 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/17/CFSP (3) ...’,

read:

| ‘(5) | On 11 January 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/17/CFSP (3) ...’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(5)

On 11 January 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/17/CFSP (3) ...’.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Rosa, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 6]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. *443McLaughlin, J.), rendered February 17, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Regardless of the validity of defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence, or remanding for resentencing. Defendant did not preserve his claim that his sentence was improperly based on a presentence report for which he was not interviewed *(see People v Pinkston,*138 AD3d 431 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*27 NY3d 1137 [2016]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that defendant could not have been prejudiced by any deficiency in the report. “Defendant received the precise sentence he bargained for” *(People v Davis,*145 AD3d 623, 624 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 1183 [2017]), and “had he wished to be interviewed by the Probation Department, he could have called the court’s attention to the fact that he had not been produced for such an interview” *(Pinkston,*138 AD3d at 432). Moreover, there is no indication that defendant was inclined to ask the court to exercise its discretion to impose a more lenient sentence than the one the parties agreed upon, a request that, “if successful, ran the risk of undoing the plea agreement pursuant to *People v Farrar*(52 NY2d 302, 307-308 [1981])” *(People v Vaughn,*4 AD3d 139, 139 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 649 [2004]; *see also People v Guerrero,*27 AD3d 386, 387 [1st Dept 2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 756 [2006]). We note that in both *People v Harleston*(139 AD3d 412 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 971 [2016]) and *People v Breaux*(24 AD3d 261 [1st Dept 2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 809 [2006]), the error was preserved for review as a question of law, and the error was prejudicial because there was no negotiated sentence.

Concur—Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 28522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13894]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Federal 
Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Trade 
Commission Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States of America 
v. Accuventure, et. al Civil Action No. 96-588-JE, was lodged on May 
11, 1998 with the United States District Court for the District of 
Oregon. In its Complaints, the United States asserted claims against 
four corporations and two individuals under the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136. seq. and under 
Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (``FTCA''), 15 U.S.C. 
Sec. 45(a). The claims concerned defendants' sale and advertisement of 
water filtering and purification products that were not registered as 
pesticides under FIFRA.
    The Consent Decree provides for injunctive relief that restricts 
the defendants' future ability to distribute and advertise water 
treatment and filtering products. The Consent Decree also requires 
defendants to pay a civil penalty of $20,000.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, 
D.C. 20044. Comments should refer to United States of America v. 
Accuventure et al., DOJ Ref. No. 1-1687
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney, Districts of Oregon, District of Oregon, 1000 
SW Third Avenue, Suite 600, Portland, OR 97204-2904; the Region X 
Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, WA 98101; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, 
N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the 
proposed Consent Decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the 
Consent Decree Library.
    In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $8.50 
(25 cents per page reproduction cost0 payable to the ``Consent Decree 
Library.''
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 98-13894 Filed 5-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                           
|                                                                                        
|No chart available.                                                                     
|No chart available.                                                                     
|                                                                                        
|                                                                                        
|Utah Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 0      |        | 0      | 0      |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
# DLA Troop Support provides masks to Philadelphia community centers 

/ Published June 14, 2021
PHILADELPHIA, 
As part of President Joe Biden’s strategy to stop the spread of COVID-19, Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support provided over 400,000 adult and youth face masks in May to 16 Philadelphia community centers.

Philabundance, the Share Food Program and other organizations distributed the masks.

DLA coordinated mask requisitions with the Department of Health and Human Services after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention prioritized areas most affected by COVID-19 to receive masks in February. The agency has since provided masks to 1,400-plus federally qualified health centers, 125 tribal organizations and 200 foodbanks nationwide.

The Clothing and Textiles supply chain worked with the Health Resources and Service Administration, Emergency Food Assistance Program and Feeding America to determine the number of masks needed by each community organization nationwide, said Eboni Martin, Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment Customer Cell Division chief.

 “The CDC provided us with an order based on need and proximity to harm, so areas with higher COVID-19 cases were prioritized,” Martin said.

Communicating directly to community organizations ensured the deliveries were successful, added Robin Kirkland-Gonzales, C&T customer liaison support officer. Her team notified customers via email on delivery dates of the free masks.

 Yvonne Bell, president and chief executive officer of Clinicas de Salud del Pueblo, Inc. in El Centro, California, said her team was grateful to receive the masks.

“The use of the masks helps to ensure the protection from transmission and spread of the COVID-19 virus, which is in line with our mission to improve the health and well-being of those we serve,” Bell said.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1990

___________

Rodney Van Huskey, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Glen Boyer; Charles Richmond; Larry *

Lashley; Bill Strickland; Linda Powell; * Appeal from the United States

Ed Danielson; Unknown Hamlin; * District Court for the

Dave Uinns; Dennis Lassing; C.D. * Eastern District of Missouri.

Goben; Dave Owens; Jim Gould; Brian *

Smith; Elaine Riggs; Dave Davis; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Debbie Westerman; Kent Menning; *

Harry Dunman; Jim Ballard; Matthew *

Delia; Marty Harris; Steve Devore; *

Fred Bradley; Dennis McHawes; Francis *

Bequette; Jane Doe; N. Scharnhorst; *

Steve Stivner, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: June 5, 1998

 Filed: July 13, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

1

District of Missouri. 

-2-

Rodney Van Huskey appeals the district court&s dismissal with prejudice of his 1

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for, inter alia, failing to comply with the court&s showcause order and failing to prosecute. After careful review of the record and the parties&

briefs, we conclude the dismissal of Huskey&s complaint was not an abuse of discretion.

See Rodgers v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 135 F.3d 1216, 1219 (8th Cir. 1998)

(standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         148,710
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          17,695
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    652,539
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,913,857
<ALLOWANCE>                                     19,716
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,852,197
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,172,754
<SHORT-TERM>                                   460,891
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             19,262
<LONG-TERM>                                      4,292
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,019
<OTHER-SE>                                     166,978
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,852,196
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                140,598
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               43,865
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,760
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               186,223
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              61,663
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,241
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          106,982
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    6,060
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (139)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 58,686
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,097
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      26,850
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,850
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.93
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.48
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,388
<LOANS-PAST>                                       641
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                14,980
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,536
<RECOVERIES>                                       212
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               19,716
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            19,716
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Joshua Ambrose, Respondent, v Meghan Ambrose, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 669]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sharon M.J. Gianelli, J.), dated January 6, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In this action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff seeks a no-fault divorce pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §170 (7). In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the marital relationship had irretrievably broken down for a *1061continuous period of more than six months. According to the allegations in the complaint, although the parties were married in California, the parties resided together in New York at the time of the commencement of the action. The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.

In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the pleading 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 Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]).

Here, affording the complaint a liberal construction and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the complaint states a cause of action for a divorce pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170 (7). The complaint sufficiently alleges that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant had broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 170 [7]; *Hoffer-Adou v Adou,*121 AD3d 618, 619 [2014]). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to satisfy the residency requirements set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 230 (4) *(cf. Stancil v Stancil, Al*Misc 3d 873 [Sup Ct. NY County 2015]).

Accordingly, the defendant’s motion was properly denied.

Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.