alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Navy Commander assumes command of DLA Energy Americas West

/ Published Aug. 27, 2020

Navy Cmdr. Frank Kim assumed command of Defense Logistics Agency Energy Americas West during a virtual assumption of command ceremony in San Pedro, California, Aug. 19. 

DLA Energy Americas Commander Army Col. Raphael Heflin presided over the ceremony via video teleconference from the DLA Energy Americas offices in Houston, Texas.

“Frank has had some unique assignments that has made him an excellent fit to command Americas West,” Heflin said. “He completed a training with Industry Fellowship with ExxonMobil and was the Fuel Director for the Fleet Logistics Center in San Diego. Frank has been recognized previously as an American Petroleum Institute Navy Fuel Officer of the Year.”

Kim, a native of Garden Grove, California, is designated as both a Naval Aviation and Surface Warfare Supply Corps Officer. He joined the DLA team from his previous assignment at Logistics Group Western Pacific, Singapore.  

“Frank has deployed five times including a combat deployment in 2017 where he was part of a joint advisory team to support United Nations forces in Mali,” Heflin said. “This deployment gave Frank a great perspective on joint multi-national forces operations.”

As the DLA Energy Americas West commander, Kim will be responsible for western petroleum supply chain management in support of Combatant Commands, the Services, and federal and state agencies. He will ensure an uninterrupted fuel supply chain across 126 partners and 27 intermediate Defense Fuel Support Points using a variety of transport methods including nine major pipelines, tank trucks, railcars, marine barges, and commercial tankers.  

“I learned early in my career that I am here not because of my singular efforts but largely because of the support and guidance I received along the way,” Kim said. “I am overwhelmed by a sense of responsibility to be a humble but effective leader who is easily understood, pragmatic and works in the best interest of the command and customers. I desire to make a meaningful and positive impact to your lives. Admittedly, this is easier said than done but I will try my best.”

“Frank, you have a proven track record and I know you will carry Americas West to even greater heights,” Heflin said. “I charge you will making a positive difference each and every day by caring for our valued workforce; maintaining a climate of dignity, respect, and inclusion; keeping the organization ready to respond to regional emergencies; and owning the mission of supporting the warfighter.”

DLA Energy Americas West, located in San Pedro, California, is one of three DLA Energy Americas regional offices working to execute the region’s area of responsibility consisting of North, Central and South Americas, plus the Caribbean Island states and territories.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00244-CV

EMIL KINCEY AND LEONA 

BROWN

APPELLANTS

V.

DTRE, LLC APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On November 19, 2010, we notified appellants that their brief had not been 

filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. 

App. P. 38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution 

unless appellants or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). We have not received any response.

Because appellants' brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for 

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellants shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ. 

DELIVERED: December 30, 2010
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Baird, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 794]

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Melchor E. Castro, A.J.), rendered October 14, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]), defendant contends that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because County Court did not conduct the requisite further inquiry after he negated an essential element of the crime during the plea colloquy by denying that he *1640threatened the use of a dangerous instrument. At the outset, we note that defendant’s contention survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Theall,*109 AD3d 1107, 1107-1108 [2013], *lv denied*22 NY3d 1159 [2014]). Nevertheless, even assuming, arguendo, that his contention falls within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]), we conclude that the court “fulfilled its duty to conduct further inquiry to ensure that the plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently” (Pe*ople v Dash,*74 AD3d 1859, 1860 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 892 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Lopez,*71 NY2d at 666). Specifically, after the court noted that defendant appeared to have negated the element in question, defendant conferred with his attorney and thereafter admitted that he had a box cutter that was visible outside his pocket, that his hand was inches from the box cutter, and that he told the victim that he did not want to hurt her. Those admissions are sufficient to show that defendant threatened the use of a dangerous instrument, and we therefore conclude that the court properly accepted the plea *(see People v Lawrence,*118 AD3d 1501, 1502 [2014], *lv denied*24 NY3d 1220 [2015]; *see also People v Skinner,*284 AD2d 906, 907 [2001]; *People v Norman,*284 AD2d 933, 933-934 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 905 [2001]).

Defendant’s further contention that his plea was coerced by his attorney also survives his waiver of the right to appeal, but he failed to preserve it for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction *(see Dash,*74 AD3d at 1859-1860), and we conclude in any event that it is without merit.

Present—Whalen, P.J., Lindley, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Curran, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Forms
S-8 No. 333-36933 and S-8 No. 333-61717 pertaining to the Specialty Care
Network, Inc. and 1996 Equity Compensation Plan of our report dated March 17,
2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Healthgrades.com, Inc. (formerly Specialty Care Network, Inc.) and subsidiaries
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.



                                             /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                             -----------------------------
                                             Ernst & Young LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 30, 2000
Order 2011

- 12

- 22

Served: D ecember 29, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 28 th day of October, 2011

In the matter of the revocation of the certificate

authority issued to

AMERICA WEST AIRLINES , INC.

pursuant to the provisions of 14 CFR § 204.7 Docket s DOT

- OST

- 1997

- 2673

ORDER CANCELING FORE I GN CERTIFICATE

By Order 2011

- 10

- 22 , issued October 28, 2011 , we cancele d the Section 41102 interstate

certificate of public convenience and necessity issued to America West Airlines, Inc. , by Order

98

- 7

- 6

.

By this order, we are cancel ing the company’s companion foreign certificate authority. Instead

of repeating our finding s and conclusions in Order 2011

- 10

- 22 , we incorporate them here by

reference.

ACCORDINGLY,

1. We cancel the certificate of public convenience and necessity issued to America West

Airlines, Inc. , by Order 97

- 11

- 2 , authorizing it to engage in foreign air transportation

.

2. Unless disapproved by the President of the United States under section 41307 of Title 49 of

the United States Code, this order shall become effective on the 61 st day after its submission for

section 41307 review or upon the date of rece ipt of advice from the President or his designee

under Executive Order 12597 and implementing regulations that he or she does not intend to

disapprove the Department's order under that section, whichever occurs earlier. 1

1 This order was submitted for section 41307 review on October 28, 2011

. The 61 st day is December 28, 2011.

Since the President or his designee did not disapprove this order before that date, it became effective on December

28, 2011.2

3. We will serve a copy of this order on the persons listed in Attachment A.

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:

http://www.regulations.govATTACHMENT A

SERVICE LIST FOR

AMERICA WEST AIRLINES , INC.

PETER LYNCH AGC

- 300

ASST CHIEF COUNSEL FOR

ENFORCEMENT

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW

WASHINGTON DC 20591 ANNE SUISSA RTS

- 42

OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION

DOT/RITA/BTS E

- 34

1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE

WASHINGTON DC 20590

WILLIAM J WEBER

CERTIFICATION SECTION MANAGER

FAA AFS

- 900

45005 AVIATION DRIVE SUITE 131

DULLES VA 20166 HOWARD KASS

US AIRWAYS

111 WEST RIO SALADO PARKWAY

TEMPE AZ 85281
#### Com. v. Schlott

10/23/2015

201 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 436
2017-0838.

#### State v. Taeusch.

Lake App. No. 2016-L-047, 2017-Ohio-1105. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted. Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

O’Donnell, French, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31459-31460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15227]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-238-000]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Cashout Report

June 3, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 1, 1998, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 
(Tennessee) tendered for filing its fourth annual cashout report for 
the September 1996 through August 1997 period.
    Tennessee states that the cashout report reflects a net cashout 
gain during this period of $2,603,963. The report also reflects a 
reduction in Tennessee's cumulative losses to date from cashout 
operations to approximately $8,111,644.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before June 10, 1998. Protests will be considered by the Commission

[[Page 31460]]

in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15227 Filed 6-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# DLA Disposition Services observes National Hispanic Heritage Month

/ Published Oct. 9, 2020
BATTLE CREEK, Mich, 
National Hispanic Heritage Month traditionally honors the cultures and contributions of both Hispanic and Latino Americans and celebrates heritage rooted in all Latin American countries.

From mid-September through mid-October, the Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services is highlighting the stories of some of its Hispanic team members’ heritage.

                John Keck checks his camera a customer account manager for DLA Disposition Services in Battle Creek, Michigan prepares to deliver his remarks for Hispanic Heritage Month.                            Hispanic Heritage interview                            John Keck checks his camera a customer account manager for DLA Disposition Services in Battle Creek, Michigan prepares to deliver his remarks for Hispanic Heritage Month.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Jeff LandenbergerVIRIN: 200929-D-YU183-1002Among those sharing stories is a customer account manager for DLA Disposition Services in Battle Creek, Michigan. He was asked to sit down (at the recommended social distance) and talk a little about his story.

He discussed  his early life in Texas, serving 23 years in the Army, including his time as a paratrooper. He then explained  how when he got to DLA Disposition Services, he had to start at the bottom again as part of the DLA Pathways to Career Excellence Program and worked his way up.

It was Congressman George E. Brown of California who led the way in 1968 for national recognition of the role Hispanic and Latino Americans played throughout American history.

Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan all issued yearly proclamations, setting aside a week to honor Hispanic Americans.

Representative Esteban E. Torres of California proposed in 1987 to expand the week-long observance to its current 31-day period. Torres said an expansion would allow for people to properly observe and coordinate events and activities to celebrate Hispanic culture and achievement.

While President Ronald Reagan was the one to sign the bill into law in August of 1988, the first president to declare a 31-day period from September 15 to October 15 as National Hispanic Heritage Month was George H.W. Bush.

Bush had been a sponsor of the original Hispanic Heritage Week resolution when he served in the House of Representatives in 1968.

The dates for Hispanic Heritage Month were chosen as to include dates when several Latin American nations celebrate their independence.
160 A.3d 713

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JAMES ZARATE (A/K/A NAVAJAS ZARATE), DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

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, and the matter is summarily remanded to the Superior Court, Law Division, for resentencing in light of this Court’s holding in *State v. Zuber,*227 *N.J.*422, 152 A.3d 197 (2017). Jurisdiction is not retained.
#### The Residential Board of Managers of Platinum, Respondent, v 46th Street Development, LLC, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.) Plaza Construction LLC, Formerly Known as Plaza Construction Corp., Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Del Salvio Masonry Corp. et al., Second Third-Party Defendants, and V.A.L. Floors, Inc., Second Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 99]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Benjamin Cohen, J.), entered on or about July 22, 2016, which denied the motion of second third-party defendant V.A.L. Floors, Inc. to dismiss the second third-party complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

V.A.L.’s contention that the second third-party complaint is time-barred is without merit. “The statute of limitations on a claim for indemnity or contribution accrues only when the *423person seeking indemnity or contribution has paid the underlying claim” *(Tedesco v A.P. Green Indus., Inc.,*8 NY3d 243, 247 [2007]). There is no indication in the record that second third-party plaintiff (who is also a third-party defendant) has paid anything to third-party plaintiff. Thus, its time to sue “has not even begun to run” *(Varo, Inc. v Alvis PLC,*261 AD2d 262, 265 [1st Dept 1999], *lv denied*95 NY2d 767 [2000]).

While it would have been better practice for V.A.L. to have explicitly made its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and/or (7) in addition to paragraph (5), it did argue in its moving papers that its contract cannot reasonably be construed to require it to indemnify second third-party plaintiff. Accordingly, we will consider this contention, and we find it unavailing. In *Inman v Binghamton Hous. Auth.*(3 NY2d 137 [1957]), on which V.A.L. relies, the plaintiff complained about the design of a stoop, rear door, and step (i.e., the architects’ work), not about how they were built (the builder’s responsibility) *(see id.*at 143). Since the claims “did not arise from any defect in workmanship or in any material used” *(id.*at 147), the indemnification clause, which limited the builder’s obligation “to injuries ‘arising out of or in connection with the . . . Work,’ ” did not apply *(id.).*By contrast, if V.A.L. is eventually obliged to indemnify second third-party plaintiff, the indemnification will have to arise out of defects in the wood flooring, which was V.A.L.’s work.

In its reply brief below, V.A.L. contended that a survey prepared by nonparty RAND Engineering & Architecture showed that any problems with the wood floors were caused by water infiltration, not by defects in its work. However, an argument that is not raised until a reply brief should not be considered *(see e.g. Travelers Indem. Co. v LLJV Dev. Corp.,*227 AD2d 151, 154 [1st Dept 1996]). Were we to reach the merits, we would find that, assuming the RAND survey constituted documentary evidence, it did not “conclusively establish[ ] a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” *(Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick, Kern and Singh, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Toyan A. Grose, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 847]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered June 29, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree.

Defendant’s pleas to attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree were entered in full satisfaction of an 11-count indictment. Pursuant to the counseled plea agreement, he was sentenced to two consecutive prison terms of five years. At sentencing, his attorney informed County Court that at the suppression hearing he learned for the first time that defendant had been indicted in Kings County and would be receiv*1212ing a 10-year sentence, and that the plea was entered on the belief that the 10 years received in Broome County would be concurrent with the 10 years received in Kings County.

One of the issues that defendant raises on this appeal is County Court’s failure to advise him that he was subject to a mandatory five-year period of postrelease supervision *(see*Penal Law § 70.45). “[P]ostrelease supervision is a direct consequence of a defendant’s guilty plea and the failure to advise a defendant of such consequence prior to entering a guilty plea mandates that a defendant be afforded the opportunity to withdraw such plea” *(People v Hazen,*308 AD2d 637, 638 [2003]; *see People v Goss,*286 AD2d 180 [2001]). We have applied this rule when the plea and sentence have preceded our decision in *People v Goss (supra),*“even where a defendant has not preserved the issue by making an appropriate motion before the trial court” *(People v Hazen, supra*at 638; *see People v Jaworski,*296 AD2d 597 [2002]; *compare People v Van Gorden,*307 AD2d 547, 548 [2003]). As defendant’s plea preceded our *Goss*decision by six months, in the interest of justice he is given an opportunity to withdraw it. Under these circumstances, we find it unnecessary to reach defendant’s other arguments.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, plea vacated and matter remitted to the County Court of Broome County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
----

----

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March 14,  2012 |   |                          |
|---------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                            | By:    | /S / JOSEPH ACKERMAN          |
|                            |   | Joseph Ackerman               |
|                            |   | Chief Executive Officer       |
|                            |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |

----

----
#### In the Matter of Edward J. Wilson, an Attorney.

[53 NYS3d 568]

Per Curiam.

Edward J. Wilson was admitted to practice by this Court in 1981 and lists a business address in New York City with the Office of Court Administration. Wilson now seeks leave to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons *(see*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [a]). The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) opposes the application by correspondence from its Chief Attorney.

*1617As is noted by AGC, Wilson is presently delinquent in his New York attorney registration requirements, having failed to timely register for the 2016-2017 biennial period *(see*Judiciary Law § 468-a; Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 118.1). Inasmuch as Wilson is therefore subject to potential disciplinary action *(see*Judiciary Law § 468-a [5]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]; *see also Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a,*113 AD3d 1020, 1021 [2014]; *Matter of Arms,*251 AD2d 743, 743-744 [1998]; *Matter of Ryan,*238 AD2d 713, 713-714 [1997]; *Matter of Farley,*205 AD2d 874, 874-875 [1994]), he is ineligible for nondisciplinary resignation and his application must be denied *(see Matter of Cluff,*148 AD3d 1346, 1346 [2017]; *Matter of Bomba,*146 AD3d 1226, 1226-1227 [2017]). Further, any future application by Wilson must be supported by proof of his full satisfaction of the requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1 (see *Matter of Frank,*146 AD3d 1228, 1228-1229 [2017]).*

McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Rose, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that Edward J. Wilson’s application for permission to resign is denied.

*

 We note, parenthetically, that Wilson additionally failed to submit a complete affidavit in support of his application for resignation and also failed to serve a copy of same upon AGC and the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [a] [1]; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] part 1240, appendix E; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.22 [a]).