alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*February 16, 2018*

2018-Ohio-599.]

*15302017-1160.

#### I.B. v. Olentangy Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

Certified Question of State Law, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. 2:16-CV-837. Sua sponte, stay of briefing schedule lifted. Petitioner shall file its merit brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.04 and 9.07.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sean McAloney, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 914]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County *539Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered October 15, 1998, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant also has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the trial court’s instruction to the jury on reasonable doubt effectively shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to him *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, it was proper for the trial court to instruct the jury that *“a*reasonable doubt is doubt for which some reason can be given” *(see People v Robinson,*218 AD2d 673 [1995], *affd*88 NY2d 1001 [1996]). “That jurors be able to give a reason for their doubt if called upon to do so in the jury room is an appropriate instruction as a basic tenet of the jury deliberation process” *(People v Robinson, supra*at 674 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 86 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
# DLA Europe and Africa welcomes new commander

/ Published June 21, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Army Col. Faith Chamberlain took the reins as Defense Logistics Agency Europe & Africa commander from departing commander Army Col. Krista Hoffman in a virtual change of command ceremony June 14.

Chamberlain will lead DLA Europe & Africa’s 700-person team, which supports 10 countries on two continents.

Hoffman, who has led the command since June 2019, has completed three leadership tours with DLA. In her next assignment, she will serve as the Army Deputy Chief of Staff logistics initiatives group chief at the Pentagon.

“It has been a privilege commanding this particular organization. The agency is and has been fortunate to have such gifted and caring leaders on the team,” Hoffman said, addressing DLA Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic and Air Force Maj. Gen. Allan Day, who retired last month after serving as director of DLA Logistics Operations. “It’s certainly not easy leading a global organization from an office in Virginia, but I speak for the team and from the heart when I say that we always felt your presence, leadership and most importantly, your support.” 

Chamberlain, a native of western Pennsylvania, was commissioned in 1999 as a Quartermaster Officer from West Point. She began her career with the 596th Maintenance Company in Darmstadt, Germany, as the ground support equipment platoon leader deploying to Macedonia in support of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission.

Her work with U.S. Army Europe and Africa afforded her an opportunity to better understand DLA’s customers, Day said. Chamberlain is also a DLA veteran, having led DLA Energy’s fuel mission in South Korea. 

Chamberlain said she was thrilled to be back with DLA and touted her previous experience in the region during the 1990s.

“I’ve remained involved, to include traveling to Liberia in 2012, studying U.S. assistance seen through the eyes of the Liberians and the humanitarian community,” she said. “These vignettes from my journey are shared only to explain my deep, personal conviction and professional commitment to our mission, which is supporting [U.S. European Command, U.S. Africa Command], NATO, allies and partners.”

She said she looks forward to fostering a culture of support among team members.

“The team’s excellent performance through this global pandemic to clothe, feed, equip, supply, store, transport, dispose and plan is a true testament to your willingness to tackle any complex problem,” she said. “In the next two years, DLA Europe & Africa will continue to provide unparalleled customer support, leadership of the joint logistics enterprise and innovation to meet emerging requirements.”

Chamberlain said DLA Europe & Africa’s new leaders, including Deputy Commander Don Bruce, will guide the organization in integrating DLA support and developing the team, which includes local nationals, civilians and military members. 

“Your command team is here to take care of you, maintain communication, and empower you to thrive personally and professionally while always supporting our warfighters.”
No. 10-52.

#### Arlene D. Rowland, Petitioner v. Prudential Equity Group, LLC.

562 U.S. 891, 131 S. Ct. 261,

178 L. Ed. 2d 139,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6355.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 362 Fed. Appx. 591.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001028079
<NAME>                        MyTurn.com, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,454,421
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    222,394
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,697,700
<PP&E>                                         228,503
<DEPRECIATION>                                 14,003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 17,604,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,201,899
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    14
<COMMON>                                       77,868
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,305,798
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   15,383,680
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               233,660
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,362,655
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             111,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,128,995)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,128,995)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (6,792,222)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,383,485)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (3.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (3.29)





</TABLE>
Order entered July 2, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01451-CV

EDWIN M. SIGEL, Appellant

V.

RAZI AAMIR, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-10-15162

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s June 27, 2013 motion to extend time to file brief in 

reply to appellee’s brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the reply brief 

tendered by appellant on June 26, 2013 be timely filed as of today’s date.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### All Children’s Hospital, Inc., Appellant, v Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Respondent.

[59 NYS3d 7]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered on or about August 25, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court was correct in utilizing New York’s borrowing statute, CPLR 202, and applying Florida’s shorter statute of limitations to plaintiff’s claims, despite the contractual choice-of-law provision pointing to New York law *(see 2138747 Ontario, Inc. v Samsung C&T Corp.,*144 AD3d 122, 126 [1st Dept 2016]).

Defendant sustained its initial burden of demonstrating prima facie that there was sufficient material available in the public record, including numerous newspaper articles and well-publicized regulatory actions, to inform plaintiff of the possibility of defendant’s alleged fraud by 2008, at the latest, thus making plaintiff’s claims time-barred under Florida’s applicable four-year statute of limitations *(see*Fla Stat §§ 95.11 [3] [j], [p]; 95.031 [1], [2] [a]). The affidavit of plaintiff’s chief financial officer was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact because it was vague and failed to address why the extensive press coverage of the manipulation of the ARS market did not come to plaintiff’s attention by 2008. Under Florida law, issues concerning when fraud was reasonably discoverable with due diligence may be determined as a matter of law because the standard is objective *(see First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. ofWis. v Dade Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn.,*403 So 2d 1097, 1100 [Fla Dist Ct App 1981]).

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

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Richter, Feinman, Webber and Kahn, JJ.
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                            
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|Port Huron, MI Natural Gas Pipeline Imports From Canada  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Port Huron, MI Natural Gas Pipeline Imports From Canada  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                          

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan  | Feb  | Mar  | Apr  | May  | Jun  | Jul  | Aug  | Sep  | Oct  | Nov  | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---
|2016                                                                                                                              |      |      |      | 2.07 | 2.06 | 2.21 |      |      | 2.91 | 3.05 |      |    
|2017                                                                                                                              | 4.19 | 3.18 | 3.08 | 3.26 |      |      |      | 3.01 |      | 2.94 | 3.12 |    
|2018                                                                                                                              |      |      |      |      |      | 2.76 | 2.81 | 3.01 | 2.86 | 3.51 |      |    
|2019                                                                                                                              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      | 2.20 |      | 2.63 |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = 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
160 A.3d 693

#### RUSSELL MOLLICA, JAMES WOLLNER, RAY MCCARTHY AND CHRIS STANZIALE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD AND COUNCILMAN NICHOLAS JOANOW, DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

February 13, 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 denied, with costs.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09** 
**- 1442** 

WILLIAM C. MITCHELL ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
AL CANNON, Sheriff, personally and in his official capacity; CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; STEPHEN C. GATES, Deputy, personally; TIMOTHY RICHARD BRANHAM, personally; CYPRESS RECOVERY ,
Defendants

– Appellees,

and

CHAD W. ROOD, Deputy,

Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Patric k Michael Duffy , District Judge. ( 2:07

- cv
- 03259

- PMD )

Submitted : January 26, 2010 Decided: February 22 , 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

William C. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Robin Lilley Jackson, SENN, MCDONALD & LEINBACK, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina;2 James Chaplin Cox, III, GRIER LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

William C. M itchell appeals the district court ’ s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting
the defendants summary judgment, and dismissing Mitchell’s
action with prejudice

. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordin gly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Mitchell v. Cannon , No. 2:07

- cv
- 03259

-
PMD (D.S.C. Apr. 1 , 2009). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the cour t and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Demetrius C. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Valencia M., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 910]

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Turbow, J.), dated January 23, 2003, which, after a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, granted the petitioner’s application to temporarily remove the subject child from the parents’ home and remand him to the care and custody of the petitioner Administration for Children’s Services.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the record discloses that she was not denied due process since the mother, through counsel, was permitted to present evidence on her own behalf at the hearing and was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the witness *(see Matter of New York City Commr. of Social Servs. [Jason C.] v Elminia E.,*134 AD2d 501 [1987]; *cf. Matter of Barbara R.,*66 AD2d 800 [1978]; *Matter of Herbert F. v Shew F.,*56 AD2d 601 [1977]).

In light of the evidence presented that the mother failed to comply with the directives of the Family Court and neglected her four older children, the Family Court properly determined that the removal of the child Demetrius C. was necessary to avoid imminent risk to his life or health *(see*Family Ct Act § 1027 [a], [b]; § 1046 [a]; *Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. [Miranda H.] v Laquetta H.,*191 AD2d 567 [1993]; *Matter of Erika B.,*268 AD2d 586 [2000]; *cf. Matter of Lashawn G.,*161 AD2d 712 [1990]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.
## V E N D O R 

## P R O F I L E

Note: Information is from vendor, however specifications may have
changed. Contact vendor for updates. Water Treatment Catalog and Decision Tool



## I N T E V R A S Technologies, LLC

Contact Information

Company Name: INTEVRAS Technologies, LLC

Profile: The company is an industrial waste water treatment company focusing on waste water reduction, crystallization, and freshwater extraction by utilizing their evaporative reduction and solidification (EVRAS) system. INTEVRAS is a privately

- owned, limited liability company founded in 2005 and headquartered in Austin, Texas with branches in Houston, Fort Worth, and Sacrame nto, California. The system has treated water in the Barnett Shale and is scheduled to

be tested in the Marcellus Shale.

Address: 7000 North Mopac, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78731

Phone: 512

- 772

- 3722

Website: http://www.intevras.com/ 

## Treatment Technology

Category: Thermal Distillation/Evaporation

Subcategory: Crystallization or Z ero L iquid D ischarge

Technology Name: EVRAS

Surface Footprint 820 ft 2

Process Description: EVRAS utilizes low

- grade waste heat to concentrate and/or crystallize large volume wastewater streams. The EVRAS system has three main components: a conventional heat exchanger, a direct contact floating bead (DCFB) heat exchanger, and the crystallizing undulating film air contacting chambe r. The conventional heat exchanger uses a waste heat source to warm a coolant which then warms the system’s heat transfer liquid (HTL). The HTL is then pumped to the DCFB heat exchanger where it comes in direct contact with the produced water. After the heat transfer has taken place the HTL is recycled back to the conventional waste heat exchanger and the produced water is now warm enough to enter the final chamber where it will be sprayed over sheets of plastic that gently undulate. This increases the

s urface area to which the water is exposed and causes increased evaporation.

Feedwater TDS/ % Water Recovery 310,000 mg/L, % water recovery not applicable with technology.

% Waste Stream: 90%

Feed Capacity: 1,200 Bbls of fresh water can be evaporated out of 3,000 Bbls of

saltwater

Costs:
160 A.3d 696

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JULIO MULERO, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 13, 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 denied.
#### Greater Pittsburgh Social Club v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd.

03/23/2016

454 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 124 A.3d 425
No. 09-11340.

#### Anthony Benjamin, Petitioner v. Mrs. Andrew, et al.

562 U.S. 875, 131 S. Ct. 182,

178 L. Ed. 2d 109,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6781.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
#### Com. v. King

11/16/2015

267 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 125 A.3d 443
##### 



Exhibit 10.2

WAIVER AND RELEASE
OF
CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT

THIS WAIVER AND RELEASE made this 21st day of October, 2002 (the
Effective Date) by James C. Richardson, Jr. (Executive) to Pierre Foods,
Inc. (the Company).

In consideration of Ten dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration,
the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
undersigned Executive does hereby release the Company from, and waive all
rights and interest in, that certain Amended and Restated Change in Control
Agreement dated July 6, 1999 (Agreement) by and between the Company and the
Executive, and said Agreement is hereby terminated and is of no further force
or effect, effective as of the Effective Date.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Executive has executed this Waiver and
Release as of the Effective Date.

| |                                                 |      
| | ----------------------------------------------- | -----
| | /s/ James C. RichardsonJames C. Richardson, Jr. | SEAL)

Acknowledge, Accept and Agree
as of the Effective Date:

Pierre Foods, Inc.

|    |  |                                                                 | 
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|By: |  | /s/ Pamela M. WittersPamela M. Witters, Chief Financial Officer

27
No. 09-10453.

#### Charles A. Gravenhorst, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 823, 131 S. Ct. 382,

178 L. Ed. 2d 17,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6599.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2107 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2107

To authorize the appointment of an additional bankruptcy judge for the 
                   Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 11 (legislative day, May 2), 1994

  Mr. Specter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the appointment of an additional bankruptcy judge for the 
                   Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL BANKRUPTCY JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 
              PENNSYLVANIA.

    Section 152(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended in 
the item relating to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by striking 
``5'' and inserting ``6''.

                                 <all>
```