alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Questionnaire
 By DLA Aviation Public Affairs Office
  Angel Tree Program Questionnaire Send your message in the form below and we will get back to you as early as possible. First Name:
 

Last Name:
 

Job Title:
 

Directorate:
 

Division:
 

Organization:
 

Number of Angels Your Adopting:
 

First Time Adopting?: Yes No

Please describe your experience with Angel Tree this year:

For those who've participated in the past; how was it in comparison to years past?

Was it better? Worse?

How efficient was the process of adopting an angel?

What did you like and what could be improved upon?
 

What is your overall impression of the Angel Tree program?
 

Please provide a photo of yourself next to your gifts.

No selfies, please. This may be used in an upcoming article that reflects your participation in the Angel Tree Program.


Please email the photo(s) in a separate email to natalie.skelton@dla.mil.
Submit → Sent your message successfully!
 Error
August 26, 2014

,

Mr. Brent D. Bowen

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University

3700 Willow Creek Rd.

Prescott, AZ 86301

Dear: Mr. Bowen:

This letter is to inform you that we have received and begun processing your petition for

exemption. It acknowledges rec eipt of the petition and describes how we will process it.

We Have the Petition

We have received your July 7, 2014 petition on behalf Embry Riddle Aeronautical University

(ERAU) for an exemption from § § 61.160(b)(1) and 61.160(d) of Title 14, Code of Fede ral

Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would allow certain students that complete

non

- aviation degrees and at least one aviation minor at ERAU to be eligible for the restricted

privileges airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate.

We have added your petition to the p ublic docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0461 and we are processing

it. We will contact you if we need additional information.

How We Will Process the Petition

A petition for an exemption, according to § 11.63(d), must be sent to the FAA at least

120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. In addition, we publish a

summary of the petition in the Federal Register for public com ment unless, according to

§ 11.87, we determine that good cause exists for not publishing it.2

We w ill advise you of the agency's final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you

have any questions in the meantime , you may contact me at (202) 493

- 5260

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Alphonso W. P e ndergrass

Transportation Industry Analyst

Airmen and Airspac e Rules Division3

Project No.: AFS

- 14

- 074

- E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM

- 207:A Pendergrass : 01/08/14 :Doc#37661

ARM

- 1/200 :Program Offic e AFS

- 300

MR CARL ALLEN

HORIZON AIR

8030 NE AIRTRAINS WAY

PORTLAND OR 97128
#### Aracelis Polanco, Respondent, v Greenstein & Milbauer, LLP, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 8]

*450Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson Jr., J.), entered April 5, 2016, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On a prior appeal, this Court reversed the grant of defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the allegation “that defendant was negligent in urging her to settle the underlying personal injury action and in advising her that an MRI was not necessary and that its results would not lead to a more favorable outcome of her case,” supported a cause of action for legal malpractice (96 AD3d 438, 439 [1st Dept 2012]).

Defendant law firm failed to meet its prima facie burden on the instant motion for summary judgment *(see Suppiah v Kalish,*76 AD3d 829, 832 [1st Dept 2010]). The firm’s legal expert did not address the stated basis for plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim, ignored her testimony as to the nature of pre-settlement discussions with her attorney, and misstated that attorney’s testimony. The firm’s radiologist’s opinion on causation, attributing plaintiff’s injuries to degenerative changes, was equivocal, inter alia, conceding that causation as to a herniation was “uncertain” and that certain changes seen on an MRI, taken over one year after the accident, could have been formed in a matter of “months.”

Even if the firm had met its initial burden on the motion, denial would be warranted based upon the existence of triable issues of fact raised by plaintiff. That plaintiff’s expert may have committed improper acts or malpractice bears on his credibility and not the admissibility of his testimony *(see Williams v Halpern,*25 AD3d 467, 468 [1st Dept 2006]) and plaintiff’s surgeon’s attribution of her injuries to a different, plausible cause, creates a triable issue of fact on causation *(see Linton v Nawaz,*62 AD3d 434, 439-440 [2009], *affd*14 NY3d 821 [2010]; *Norfleet v Deme Enter., Inc.,*58 AD3d 499, 500 [1st Dept 2009]).

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

Concur—Acosta, J.R, Renwick, Mazzarelli, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
# DLA Distribution Commanding General's Memorial Day message

/ Published May 26, 2021
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Distribution Teammates,

The past year has been trying for all of us. As we diligently work toward seeing our way through to the end of the pandemic, I hope you can find time this Memorial Day weekend to pause and reflect on those who came before us and paid the ultimate sacrifice. I would also like to extend my gratitude to the entire DLA Distribution Team for your hard work and dedication over the past year.

For those of us who will mark this Memorial Day in the company of our loved ones and friends, please take the time to remember our Warfighters at home and abroad who continue their mission with unwavering dedication to ensure the safety and freedoms of all Americans. I encourage all of you to reflect on the ideals so many have fought and sacrificed for: we are all created equal with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our actions are the greatest testimony to the sacrifices of our warfighters.

As you enjoy some well-earned time off this Memorial Day, Mr. Knight and I would like to thank you for everything you do to support our Warfighters and our federal partners, and remind you all to stay safe.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: Justin Wayne Parris v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00502-CR

Trial court case number: 1352699

Trial court: 338th Judicial District Court of Harris County

On March 12, 2015, this Court granted the pro se motion by the appellant, Justin 

Wayne Parris, for a second 45-day extension to file his pro se response to his appointed 

counsel’s Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 

1400 (1967). In that Order, because the appellant claimed that the reporter’s record was 

incomplete and was missing any pre-trial suppression motion hearing, this Court directed 

the trial clerk to file confirmation of delivery of the clerk’s record and to file any 

supplemental clerk’s or reporter’s records containing any pre-trial suppression 

motion/hearing records or a certification that there are no such records. On March 18, 

2015, the trial clerk filed a certification in this Court confirming that a copy of the clerk’s 

record had been delivered to appellant on January 23, 2015.

Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a third motion, dated April 24, 2015, requesting 

a final 30-day extension of time to file his pro se Anders brief response, which was 

currently set at April 27, 2015, until after he receives the pre-trial suppression motion 

hearing record. After a preliminary review of the clerk’s records, although it appears that 

a motion to suppress was filed on July 17, 2012, in an earlier trial court cause number 

1240104, that was later transferred into the current cause number, there is no indication 

that the trial court ruled on the motion or held a suppression hearing. (C.R. at 150-52).

Nevertheless, because this Court’s March 12, 2015 Order was directed only at the trial 

clerk and it is unclear whether a suppression hearing was held, the Court sua sponte 

abates this appeal and orders the official court reporter, or any substitute reporter, to file 

a supplemental reporter’s record of the suppression motion hearing in trial court cause 

number 1240104/1352699, if any, or else file an information statement confirming that 

no such record was taken, within 15 days of the date of this order.
2

This appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. This appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket after a

supplemental reporter’s record or information statement that complies with this Order is

filed with the Clerk of this Court. Accordingly, because the Court is abating this case, 

appellant’s deadline to file his pro se Anders response, which was set at April 27, 2015, is 

stayed until after reinstatement when this Court will consider appellant’s third motion for 

an extension of time.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 7, 2015
EXHIBIT 13.3




Section 906 Certification by Principal Financial Officer




In connection with the Annual Report of Elbit Imaging Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Doron Moshe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:




(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 results of operations of the Company.




Date:  June 6, 2011


/s/ Doron MosheDoron MosheChief Financial Officer
No. 09-11348.

#### Orville C. Massey, Jr., Petitioner v. David Ballard, Warden.

562 U.S. 875, 131 S. Ct. 183,

178 L. Ed. 2d 109,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6597.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 363 Fed. Appx. 243.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Westley Poirier, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 283]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered October 7, 2014, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant *575may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.
# DLA Troop Support procurement leader gains spot in 2021 Hall of Fame

/ Published Jan. 5, 2022
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
*Editor’s note: This is one of five stories featuring 2021 DLA Hall of Fame inductees. A video highlighting inductees’ contributions to the agency will be broadcast on DLA’s Facebook page Jan. 11.*

A former Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support leader who led employees through multiple changes in acquisition processes and systems is a member of the 2021 DLA Hall of Fame.

Christos Cosfol oversaw commodity support on complex procurements including prime vendor, multiple-award and long-term contracts. Leaders from all DLA Troop Support supply chains leaned on him to help map out acquisition strategies and techniques. He retired as the deputy director of procurement process support in 2014. 

In 1986, Cosfol led implementation of the DLA Pre-Award Contracting System, merging computer development efforts of the new system with employee workloads.

“This action was no small feat considering that desktop network connectivity and personal computers were only concepts in DLA during the mid-1980s. DPACS pushed the technology down to the desktops and developed an internal network and deployment of over 1,300 personal computers,” the nomination reads.

He also led a team of buyers and business process analysts who spent nearly seven years designing, building and testing eProcurement. During a year-plus training period, Cosfol spoke at every class and assisted business process analysts who trained system users.  

DLA Troop Support’s time-to-award initiative succeeded as well due to Cosfol’s knowledge of contracting and automation. The team achieved 65% faster processing of awards, saving thousands of hours in work time and ensuring warfighters received supplies quicker. 

Cosfol’s nomination describes him as a leader, role model, expert and visionary whose legacy has a significant and lasting impact on the agency. He began his federal career as a GS-3 student trainee under a work study program with Drexel University.

Visit DLA’s Hall of Fame website for more information about other 2021 inductees and members from previous years.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mediacom LLC (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Rocco B. Commisso,
Chief Executive Officer and Mark E. Stephan, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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

November 11, 2003
    
    BY:
    
    /S/ ROCCO B. COMMISSORocco B. Commisso
Chief Executive OfficerBY:
    
    /S/ MARK E. STEPHANMark E. Stephan
Chief Financial Officer
(December 31, 2003)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven R. Mason, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 843]

— Lahtinen, J.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered January 28, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal contempt in the first degree, and (2) by permission, from an order of said court, entered September 1, 2000, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction, without a hearing.

Defendant was charged in an indictment with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree after he sold cocaine in the City of Elmira, Chemung County, on April 15, 1999. Following a May 1999 incident in which he violated a protective order, he was charged in a second indictment with two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree. In satisfaction of both indictments, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of criminal contempt in the first degree. Under the terms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 4V2 to 9 years on the criminal sale conviction and 2 to 4 years on the contempt conviction. Thereafter, he moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction. County Court denied the motion without a hearing, resulting in these appeals.

Defendant’s sole contention is that the sentence is harsh and excessive. Initially, we note that “ ‘[t]he imposition of the sentence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we should not interfere unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances’ ” *(People v King,*293 AD2d 815, 817-818 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 698 [2002], quoting *People v Harris,*57 AD2d 663 [1977]; *see People v Roberts, 301*AD2d 756, 757 [2003]). Based upon our review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances. Given defendant’s status as a second felony offender, he was potentially subject to a maximum 121⁄2 to 25-year prison term on the criminal sale conviction *(see*Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [b]; [4] [b]) and a maximum two- to four-year prison term on the criminal contempt conviction *(see*Penal Law § 70.06 *1208[3] [e]; [4] [b]). Because each conviction arose out of separate incidents, County Court could also have imposed consecutive prison terms *(see People v Smith,*309 AD2d 1081, 1083 [2003]; *People v Shook,*294 AD2d 710, 713-714 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 702 [2002]), resulting in a prison term of 141⁄2 to 29 years. In addition, the presentence investigation report reveals that defendant has a lengthy criminal history, including many drug-related crimes. In view of this, as well as the fact that he agreed to the sentence as part of the plea bargain, we find no reason to disturb it.

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen Wallace, Also Known as Spaz, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 684]

McCarthy, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Giardino, J.), rendered September 19, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted assault in the first degree.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted assault in the first degree and waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced, as a second felony offender, in accordance with the plea agreement *1552to an eight-year prison term, followed by five years of post-release supervision. Defendant now appeals.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, a review of the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal. Defendant informed County Court that he was aware of the rights he was giving up by waiving his right to appeal and was doing so voluntarily, and he specifically acknowledged that he had previous experience executing appeal waivers. Furthermore, defendant affirmed that he had discussed with his attorney and voluntarily signed a written waiver, which clarified that it was separate from the rights forfeited by his guilty plea *(see People v Rhodes,*143 AD3d 1011, 1011 [2016]; *People v Van Clief,*122 AD3d 1062, 1062 [2014], *lv denied*24 NY3d 1221 [2015]). Although defendant’s valid appeal waiver does not preclude his challenge to the voluntariness of the plea, such claim is unpreserved because the record does not reflect that defendant made any appropriate postallucation motion *(see People v Constantopoules,*141 AD3d 942, 943 [2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 1027 [2016]; *People v McCray,*139 AD3d 1235, 1235-1236 [2016]). Finally, any challenge to the agreed-upon sentence as harsh and excessive is precluded by the valid appeal waiver *(see People v McCall,*146 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2017]).

Egan Jr., Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
# DLA Distribution Korea is awarded the Henry T. Flint DLA Shipping Point of the Year award

/ Published Sept. 17, 2020
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
The Theater and Consolidation Shipping Point Team of Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Korea is awarded the Henry T. Flint DLA Shipping Point of the Year award for their efforts through 2019, all done while experiencing personnel shortages through either promotion or permanent change of station orders.

The TCSP team of DDDK handles sea and air cargo in addition to staging and shipping throughout the peninsula. Despite being short staffed at 84% of authorized personnel, the team kept the warfighter always at the forefront of the mission, never missing a beat nor showing any degradation in service.

Across metrics and standards of timeliness the TCSP team consistently performed at a high level. With some standards allowing for 40 hours’ time for completion, the TCSP team would consistently average turnaround times that never exceed 24 hours.

Added to their challenge of less staff, there was less physical space as construction took place in their area. Despite less staff, less space and a busy work area, the TCSP team would consistently perform in a timely manner and simultaneously have zero safety incidents.

Serving multiple customers across the peninsula the Continuous Process Improvement Team of DDDK developed communication products to help educate customers on their process workflow and demonstrate that DLA Distribution was performing ahead of standard on timeliness. This allowed those customers to better focus on other areas to improve the outcome of their logistics needs.

No goal could ever be met or exceeded the way DDDK has without a workforce that is dedicated to the mission. In order to ensure safety and the best possible efficiency, DDDK leadership made changes to ensure that MHE was routed and utilized properly, as well ensuring that employees all were well prepared for the daily tasks.

The efforts of the TCSP team of DDDK are a great reflection upon DLA Distribution, their team and each of their own individual performances.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15357]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2280]


Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in 
Rulemaking Proceeding

June 2, 1998.
    Petitions for reconsideration and clarification has been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice 
and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of 
these documents are available for viewing and copying in Room 239, 1919 
M Street, NW, Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's 
copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to these 
petitions must be filed June 25, 1998. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the 
Commission's rule (47 CFR 1.4(b)(2)). Replies to an opposition must be 
filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.
    Subject: Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: 
Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network 
Information and other Customer Information (CC Docket No. 96-115).
    Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 
272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (CC Docket 98-149).
    Number of Petitions filed: 27.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15357 Filed 6-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M