alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Spring into action when traveling or getting together in public gatherings
 
  By Security and Emergency Services, Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond
  Defense Logistics Agency security officials remind employees to take security precautions when traveling. Spring is here! When your plans are being made, and before your itinerary is set, be sure to include some of these security tips from Antiterrorism Officer Russell Pitts, DLA Installation Management Richmond. “Before traveling, leave a copy of your itinerary, along with your contact information with a close friend or family member.” Pitts said. Pitts said to follow OPSEC, or operations security by not volunteering travel plans or personal information to strangers. “Keep a low profile. The way you dress, conduct and mannerisms should not attract attention. Try to blend into the local environment,” he said. “Avoid isolated areas, side streets, civil disturbances and demonstrations. Pitts said while dining out, look for exits and make a quick action plan if you need to evacuate or react to an unforeseen threat. If possible, sit facing the entrance to improve situational awareness. He said to be alert for unmarked vehicles or personnel, while exercising caution with strangers. Park in well-lit areas. “When making travel reservations, do not use rank or position,” said Pitts. “When choosing a hotel room, avoid rooms next to emergency exits. Pick an inside room and close the curtains. Verify room service and deliveries and keep your doors and accessible windows closed and locked.” Pitts also suggests keeping car and house keys separate while maintaining accountability. “Lock your valuables in the trunk. Ensure you have the proper personal protection equipment and hand sanitizer. Remember to trust your instincts.” Pitts said. If you are a Defense Department employee and are planning an oversea trip, contact your local antiterrorism officer. The ATO may have additional information that you may need to ensure you have a safe and secure trip. If you have any question on travel preparations, please contact Pitts, at Russell.pitts@dla.mil.
#### In the Matter of Lela G., Respondent, v Shoshanah B., Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 16]

Order, Family Court, New York County (George L. Jurow, J.H.O.), entered on or about July 13, 2016, which modified the parties’ January 26, 2012 so-ordered custody agreement, *594without a hearing, by, inter alia, modifying respondent Shoshanah B.’s weekly, holiday and summer parenting time, and restricting her access to information regarding the child’s education, health care, school events, and medical treatments, unanimously reversed, on the law, withoút costs, and the matter remanded for a hearing.

Modification of custody or visitation, even on a temporary basis, requires a hearing, absent a showing of an emergency (see *Shoshanah B. v Lela G.,*140 AD3d 603, 606 [1st Dept 2016]; *Matter of Martin R.G. v Ofelia G.O.,*24 AD3d 305, 305-306 [1st Dept 2005]; *Matter of Rodger*W. *v Samantha S.,*95 AD3d 743, 743 [1st Dept 2012]). Here, a hearing was-not conducted prior to the court’s modification of the custody agreement with respect to visitation. The court also effectively barred respondent from access to the child’s school officials and events, as well as medical visits and treatment, without petitioner’s consent, over the attorney for the child’s objection, based on an incident where respondent objected to how the child’s name was registered and petitioner’s failure to identify respondent as a parent. On this record, the modifications lacked an evidentiary basis.

Nor was the determination rendered on an emergency basis. At the time the Family Court issued the order appealed from, petitioner’s July 2, 2015 application had been pending for approximately one year. In view of the parties’ conflicting factual accounts in their papers and the absence of any showing of an emergency requiring an immediate modification of the custody agreement, the court should not have modified the agreement without a hearing at which respondent and the child’s attorney had an opportunity to present testimony and evidence *(see Shoshanah B.,*140 AD3d at 607).

Additionally, in light of this Court’s decision on a prior appeal, which vacated that portion of the Family Court’s November 2014 order that suspended respondent’s Wednesday overnight visits without a hearing *(id.*at 603), the court erred in failing to reinstate such visitation, since the court had not received competent evidence that it would not be in the child’s best interest to do so *(id.).*We note, as indicated by the attorney for the child, that this issue requires further exploration at a hearing.

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

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 12-7580.

#### Sillah *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 95-40631

Summary Calendar

_______________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTONIA BERRY, also known as Tony,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:92-CR-93-1)

_________________________________________________________________

February 23, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Antonio Berry appeals from the district court's

denial of his motion for a new trial, filed pursuant to Fed. R.

Crim. P. 33. He contends that he recently learned that, under a

local rule of the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Texas, his trial attorney was not qualified to practice

law in that court, and that the attorney was thus per se

ineffective. We have reviewed the record and the district court's
2

decision and find no reversible error. The local rule to which

Berry refers is not "newly discovered evidence", and his counsel

was properly admitted to the court in this case. Other issues are

presented by Berry for the first time on appeal, and we decline to

review them. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons

given in the district court's decision. Berry v. United States,

No. 1:92-CR-93-1 (E.D. Tex. July 13, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1




Second Amendment

to the

Copano Energy, L.L.C.

Long-Term Incentive Plan




          WHEREAS, Copano Energy, L.L.C (the “Company”) maintains the Copano Energy, L.L.C. Long-Term
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) for the purpose of granting Awards thereunder to eligible Employees,
Directors and independent contractor consultants who perform services for the Company and its
Affiliates; and




          WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to provide for the Company’s right to cash out
Awards of (i) Restricted Units under the Plan in connection with the vesting of such units and (ii)
Options in connection with their exercise;




          NOW,
THEREFORE, effective as of May 25, 2006, the Plan is amended as follows:





	I.	 	A new Section 6(a)(v) shall be added to the Plan as follows:






     “(v) Option Cash-Out Right. To the extent determined by the
Company in its sole discretion, and to the extent provided for in an Award
Agreement, in lieu of issuing Units to the Participant in connection with
the exercise of an Option, the Company may elect to pay the Participant an
amount of cash equal to the excess of the aggregate Fair Market Value of
the Units as to which the Options are being exercised as of the date of
exercise over the aggregate exercise price for such Units, less any
amounts required to be withheld by the Company or an Affiliate to meet
withholding obligations under applicable law (the right to make such
election, the “Option Cash-Out Right”). Upon payment by the Company of
such amount, the number of Units that may be purchased by the Participant
pursuant to the Options shall be reduced to the same extent as if the
Company had not exercised the Option Cash-Out Right and the Participant
had exercised the Options pursuant to his election.”




	II.	 	A new Section 6(d)(iv) shall be added to the Plan as follows:






     “(iv) Restricted Unit Cash-Out Right. To the extent
determined by the Company in its sole discretion, and to the extent
provided for in an Award Agreement, the Company may elect to pay a
Participant an amount of cash equal to the aggregate Fair Market Value of
the Restricted Units on the vesting date of such units, less any amounts
required by the Company or an Affiliate to meet withholding obligations
under applicable law, in lieu of issuing such units to the Participant
(the right to make such election, the “Restricted Unit Cash-Out Right”).
Upon payment by
the Company of such amount, any certificate representing the
Restricted Units as to which such Restricted Unit Cash-Out Right has been
exercised shall be cancelled.”



 









 





     All terms used herein that are defined in the Plan shall have the same meanings given to such
terms in the Plan, except as otherwise expressly provided herein.



     Except as amended and modified hereby, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect and
the Plan and this instrument shall be read, taken and construed as one and the same instrument.



     Effective
this day of May
25, 2006.
#### Stein v Reisner

1st Dept: 145 AD3d 499

denied
No. 09-10520.

#### Jason Eric Sonntag, Petitioner v. Jim Woods, et al.

562 U.S. 845, 131 S. Ct. 86,

178 L. Ed. 2d 55,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5821.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
#### Spero Zepatos, *Appellant,*vs. Speros George Tragas, *Appellee.*

144 So. 880.

Decision filed December 8, 1932.

*Hull, Landis & WMtehair,*for Appellant;

*Shoitz, Creen & West,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the Order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said Order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said Order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 28370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13871]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 15, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference 
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-13871 Filed 5-20-98; 12:53 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 12
                    U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, Inc.
                  RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                        (Dollars in Millions)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                             <C>       <C>
                                                  Quarter Ended
                                                6/30/97   6/30/96
------------------------------------------      --------  --------
Income before income taxes
  and cumulative effect of
  change in accounting principle                $  571    $  543
Interest expense (net of amounts
  capitalized)                                      93       101
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                    16        15
                                                --------  --------
Earnings                                        $  680    $  659

Interest expense                                $   98    $  116
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                    16        15
                                                --------  --------
Fixed charges                                   $  114    $  131

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                5.96      5.03
------------------------------------------      --------  --------


                                                  Year-to-Date
                                                6/30/97   6/30/96
------------------------------------------      --------  --------
Income before income taxes
  and cumulative effect of
  change in accounting principle                $1,135    $1,023
Interest expense (net of amounts
  capitalized)                                     189       204
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                    31        29
                                                --------  --------
Earnings                                        $1,355    $1,256

Interest expense                                $  201    $  232
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                    31        29
                                                --------  --------
Fixed charges                                   $  232    $  261

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                5.84      4.81
------------------------------------------      --------  --------
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Yhovanny Peguero, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 132]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant *454from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered October 28, 2015, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur— Renwick, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
#### BankUnited, as Assignee of the FDIC, as Receiver for BankUnited, FSB, Plaintiff, v Lev Kheyfets et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. Christiana Trust, a Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee for Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2012-19, Nonparty Respondent.

[57 NYS3d 159]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Lev Kheyfets and Arkady Kheyfets appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Graham, J.), dated May 7, 2015, which granted the motion of nonparty Christiana Trust, a Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as trustee for Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2012-19, as assignee of *949the plaintiff, in effect, to vacate an order of the same court (Knipel, J.) dated August 15, 2013, conditionally dismissing the action pursuant to CPLR 3216, and to restore the action to the calendar.

Ordered that the order dated May 7, 2015, is affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 3216 permits a court, on its own initiative, to dismiss an action for want of prosecution where certain conditions precedent have been complied with. As relevant here, one precondition is that the court must serve the plaintiff with a written demand to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days after receipt of the demand *(see*CPLR 3216 [b] [3]; *Cadichon v Facelle,*18 NY3d 230, 235 [2011]).

On August 15, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a conditional order of dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216, stating that this action would be dismissed unless the plaintiff filed a note of issue or otherwise sought entry of judgment by motion within 90 days. However, there is no indication that the plaintiffs counsel was present at the status conference at which the court issued the conditional order of dismissal, and there is no evidence that the order was ever properly served upon the plaintiff. Consequently, the court was without power to dismiss the action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the conditional order of dismissal *(see Krause v Lobacz,*131 AD3d 1128, 1129-1130 [2015]; *Docteur v Interfaith Med. Ctr.,*90 AD3d 814, 815 [2011]; *Ovchinnikov v Joyce Owners Corp.,*43 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2007]). Accordingly, the court properly granted the motion of nonparty Christiana Trust, a Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as trustee for Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2012-19, as assignee of the plaintiff, in effect, to vacate the conditional order of dismissal and to restore the action to the calendar.

Balkin, J.P., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14811]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-562-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company, Notice of Request 
Under Blanket Authorization

May 29, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 20, 1998, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company, (Applicant), 200 North Third Street, Suite 300, 
Bismarck, North Dakota, 58501, filed in Docket No. CP98-562-000 a 
request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.211) for 
approval to utilize an existing tap to effectuate natural gas 
transportation deliveries to Montana-Dakota Utilities for ultimate use 
by additional end-use customers in McCone County, Montana, under 
Applicant's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-487-000, 
pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more 
fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and 
open to public inspection.
    Applicant submits that it was authorized to acquire and operate 
this tap pursuant to the Commission's Order dated February 13, 1985, in 
Docket Nos. CP82-487-000, et al. Applicant proposes herein to utilize 
this existing tap to effectuate additional natural gas transportation 
deliveries to Montana-Dakota for other than right-of-way grantor use. 
Applicant states that it plans to provide natural gas transportation 
deliveries to Montana-Dakota for ultimate use by additional end-use 
customers under Applicant's Rate Schedule FT-1 and/or IT-1.
    Applicant asserts that the estimated additional volume to be 
delivered is 330 Dkt per year and that the proposed service will have 
no significant effect on Applicant's peak day or annual requirements. 
Applicant further asserts that capacity has been determined to exist on 
Applicant's system to serve this natural gas market.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 45 days of the 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.214), a motion to intervene and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activities shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, 
the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-14811 Filed 6-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# Latest edition of The Rap talk show features 17-year DLA employee

/ Published March 25, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
A 17-year Defense Logistics Agency employee who started as a cataloger for National Stock Numbers and worked her way up to the deputy executive director of policy and strategic programs for DLA Logistics Operations stars in the latest edition of The Rap talk show.

Emily Vogeler had job offers from three organizations when she graduated college with a degree in public relations: PGA Tour, a nonprofit and DLA.

“I didn’t really know what to do. I saw pros and cons with each of the options,” she says on the show.

Vogeler accepted DLA’s offer because of the stability it offered and because her parents said her opportunities would be limitless in the federal government. She’s proven them right, moving from her first position at Battle Creek, Michigan, to DLA Headquarters at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, where she’s taken on a variety of new roles in DLA Information Operations and DLA Logistics Operations.

Vogeler tells viewers how mentorship played a role in her journey and whether she ever regrets passing up a job with the PGA.

Employees can recommend people and programs for future episodes or send feedback and suggestions to Nutan.chada@dla.mil.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edwin Rodriguez, Appellant, v Christopher Miller, as Superintendent of Great Meadows Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 237]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McKeighan, J.), entered April 15, 2016 in Washington County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner is currently serving two concurrent five-year prison terms based on two convictions of robbery in the first degree *(People v Rodriguez,*144 AD3d 498 [2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 1188 [2017]). Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that he should be transferred to a Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment program and that he should not be housed in a maximum security facility *(see generally*Penal Law § 60.04 [6]; 7 NYCRR 1950.2).* Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and petitioner now appeals.

Even if the issues raised by petitioner in his petition were *1501substantiated and determined to have merit, he would not be entitled to immediate release from prison and, therefore, a writ of habeas corpus could not be granted *(see People ex rel. Kaplan v Commissioner of Correction of City of N.Y.,*60 NY2d 648, 649 [1983]; *People ex rel. Vickery v Griffin,*125 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2015], *lv denied*25 NY3d 908 [2015]; *People ex rel. White v Smith,*120 AD3d 1469, 1470 [2014]). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition *(see*CPLR 7003 [a]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Clark, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

*

 Respondent has submitted a letter indicating that it was not served and did not appear in Supreme Court.