alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 18 is Armed Forces Day
 
  By DLA Public Affairs
   Nations around the world honor their military forces with an Armed Forces Day. In the United States, the celebration is held the third Saturday in May. Not to be confused with Veterans Day or Memorial Day, Armed Forces Day was first conceived by President Harry S. Truman in 1949, the same year all branches of the service were unified under the Department of Defense. The first Armed Forces Day was celebrated in 1950 with parades, open houses, receptions and air shows. It was made an official holiday by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. The day is part of a monthlong celebration of America’s military members. Other national observances include: • May 1, Loyalty Day – The reaffirmation of loyalty to the United States.
• May 5-11 (first full week in May), Public Service Recognition Week – Honors the men and women who serve the nation as federal, state and local government employees.
• May 8, Victory in Europe Day – Marks the end of World War II in Europe.
• May 10 (Friday before Mother’s Day), Military Spouse Appreciation Day – Honors military spouses and the important role military families play in keeping the country safe and service members strong.
• May 11-18 (second through third Saturday of May) Armed Forces Week – Typically celebrated the week leading up to Armed Forces Day. Honors past and present service members.
• May 27, Memorial Day – Commemorates the men and women who died while in military service.
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Daniel J. Taylor, certify that:



| | 1. |  | I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.;
| | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 2, 2004



/s/    DANIEL J. TAYLORDaniel J. Taylor Chief Financial Officer
No. 09-1440.

#### G. R. H., Petitioner v. Louisiana.

562 U.S. 834, 131 S. Ct. 131,

178 L. Ed. 2d 34,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6387.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, denied.

Same case below, 10 So. 3d 896.
2017-0441.

#### State v. Black.

Cuyahoga App. No. 102586, 2017-Ohio-953.
# Thule receives critical resupply shipment only once a year

/ Published July 30, 2019
THULE AIR BASE, Greenland, 
Pacer Goose Sustainment is the Air Force’s annual resupply mission for Thule Air Base in Greenland. This is the only time of the year when the Airmen of the 821st Air Base Group are provided with critical supplies.“We receive construction materials, vehicles, Army and Air Force Exchange Service shipments and other supplies needed to sustain the base and carry out the mission,” said 1st Lt. Sylvan LaChance, 821st Space Test Squadron logistics flight commander. “Along with cargo that may be too large or heavy for airlift, the annual resupply delivers fuel—the lifeblood of the base. Fuel is required to power the base and the aircraft that land here.”The annual mission is conducted any time after the last week of June until the second week of August. However, the timeframe for unloading can vary greatly depending on the demand in any given year.“Port season is limited due to weather and ocean conditions,” LaChance said. “The resupply must take place after the bay ice has melted and must be finished before the bay freezes over again in the fall.”The resupply mission ships out this time of year because the ice at the port of Thule is at its weakest and an icebreaker can be used to clear the path for cargo ships.Thule receives between nine and 12 ships during port season. This wouldn’t be possible without several units working together. For U.S. cargo, shipments are coordinated through the Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Norfolk, Virginia, the 21st Logistics Readiness Squadron at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, and Thule’s logistics flight.Pacer Goose isn’t the only resupply mission for Thule. Weekly aircraft missions take cargo and personnel from McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey to Greenland. Aircraft bring rations, mail, critical upgrade and construction materials, power plant equipment and household goods.“Because Thule receives two aircraft per week, there is a tendency for units and contractors to rely on aircraft instead of cargo ships,” LaChance said. “The result is under-utilization of Pacer Goose. We encourage customers of the transportation system to plan a year in advance and send material via the cargo ship, but contractual and financial timeliness sometimes prohibit this.”The annual resupply mission is essential to the mission and those living at Thule because it plays a critical role in war planning and acts as a force multiplier for contingency plans.“The port season is an extremely unique opportunity for Air Force personnel to experience,” LaChance said. “It is probably the only time in our careers that we will be able to play a role in seaport operations. Getting to witness this annual resupply not only enhances understanding from a logistical perspective, but also offers a window into the challenges of operating in the Arctic.”*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Peterson Air Force Base website.*
No. 09-1538.

#### Carla Hernandez-Ramos, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 839, 131 S. Ct. 188,

178 L. Ed. 2d 43,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5828.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 09-10700.

#### Herbert Morton, Petitioner v. Millicent Warren, Warden.

562 U.S. 849, 131 S. Ct. 99,

178 L. Ed. 2d 62,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6104.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
2016-1845.

#### State ex rel. Roberts v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-892, 2016-0hio-7570. On appellant’s application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2055

To amend the Guaranteed Rural Housing Loan Program provisions of the

Housing Act of 1949.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 26 (legislative day, APRIL 11), 1994

Mr. WOFFORD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Guaranteed Rural Housing Loan Program

provisions of the Housing Act of 1949.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Guaranteed Rural

5 Housing Fairness Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF POOLING REQUIREMENTS FOR

7 GUARANTEED RURAL HOUSING LOAN PRO8 GRAM.

9 Section 502(h)(11) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42

10 U.S.C. 1472(h)(11)) is amended—
2

•S 2055 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘(11) ALLOCATION.—The Sec2 retary’’ and inserting the following:

3 ‘‘(11) ALLOCATION.—

4 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; and

5 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub6 paragraph:

7 ‘‘(B) POOLING AND REALLOCATION.—The

8 Secretary may not pool or reallocate funds that

9 were allocated for use in any State under this

10 subsection prior to the expiration of the fiscal

11 year next following the fiscal year in which the

12 funds were allocated.’’.

Æ
No. 09-10899.

#### George C. Banks, Petitioner v. John Jordan, Sheriff, Cape Girardeau County, Missouri, et al.

562 U.S. 855, 131 S. Ct. 118,

178 L. Ed. 2d 72,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5983.

October 4, 2010.

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

*73Same case below, 354 Fed. Appx. 273.
# Logisticians, Army focus on shared goals

/ Published Feb. 15, 2019
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 
Defense Logistics Agency officials met with Army leaders at the McNamara Headquarters Complex Feb. 14 to discuss mutual objectives. 

DLA Director Army Lt. Gen. Darrell Williams; Army Lt. Gen. Aundre Piggee, the service’s deputy chief of staff for logistics; and Army Materiel Command Deputy Commander Army Lt. Gen. Edward Daly led the event, which included representatives from each of DLA’s major subordinate commands.

In his opening comments, Williams emphasized readiness and how DLA should prioritize investment in Army support through demand planning and performance based logistics. He also expressed areas of concern related to cost structure and storage, depot-level repairables and de-obligations. 

Piggee opened the session with a state of the Army briefing and a review of open action items. Other briefing topics included supply chain optimization, demand planning and investments, financial updates and overviews of the Enterprise Dashboard and inventory of Army items in DLA custody. 

The event concluded with support updates from DLA’s MSC leaders and open discussion.
#### Barbara Weinstein et al., Appellants, v Seawane Golf and Country Club, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[59 NYS3d 438]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated July 5, 2016, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On the evening of July 5, 2014, the plaintiff Barbara Weinstein (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) was at premises owned and operated by the defendants Seawane Golf and Country Club, Inc., and The Seawane Club (hereinafter together the club). The defendant Donald F. Mollitor, who was the general manager of the club, was standing next to a table with his back to the injured plaintiff. As she approached the table, he allegedly backed up and bumped into her, causing her to fall and sustain personal injuries. Thereafter, the injured plaintiff, and her husband suing derivatively, commenced the instant action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering evidence that Mollitor was not negligent in *583the happening of the accident and that the defendants did not create a dangerous or defective condition in the placement of the table *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *see also Witkowski v Island Trees Pub. Lib.,*125 AD3d 768 [2015]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d at 324). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Rivera, J.R, Hall, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
160 A.3d 706

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. YOHAN BALCACER (A/K/A JOHAN RIBAS-BALCACER), 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CYNTHIA O’CONNER, 1

Petitioner Below, Appellant,

v.

DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES/DOUGLAS RILEY,

Respondent Below, Appellee. § § No. 219, 2020 § § Court Below—Family Court § of the State of Delaware § § File No. CN09-04138 § Petition No. 19-20603 § § § §

Submitted: January 22, 2021 Decided: March 5, 2021

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES

, Justices.

ORDER

Upon careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, 2 we

conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Family

Court’s May 19, 2020 order, which affirmed the Commissioner’s November 15,

2019 child support order.

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).

2 We have not considered documents that the appellant presented for the first time on appeal. See
Price v. Boulden , 2014 WL 3566030, at *2 (Del. July 14, 2014) (“[T]his evidence was not available to the Family Court in the first instance, is outside of the record on appeal, and cannot properly be considered by this Court.”); Del. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Duphily , 703 A.2d 1202, 1206 (Del. 1997) (“It is a basic tenet of appellate practice that an appellate court reviews only matters considered in the first instance by a trial court.”).2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Chief Justice
No. 09-1427.

#### Naitram Persaud, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 833, 131 S. Ct. 125,

178 L. Ed. 2d 33,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6159.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
#### Guth v. 19th Jud. District

OP 17-0189

04/11/17

Denied

Original Proceeding Supervisory Control
#### Figura v Frasier

4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1586

denied
No. 09-10029.

#### Winford Kent Bishop, Petitioner v. Antonio Johnson, et al.

562 U.S. 802, 131 S. Ct. 74,

178 L. Ed. 2d 3,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7691.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Same case below, 684 S.E.2d 885.
**Exhibit 10.21**

AMENDMENT NO. 3 

TO 

AMERICAN DENTAL PARTNERS, INC. 

1997 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 

The American DentalPartners, Inc. 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as previously amended by an Amendment dated February 27, 1998, and an Amendment dated February 25, 2000 (collectively, the “Plan”), is hereby amended pursuant to the followingprovisions: 

1. Definitions

All capitalized terms used in this amendment which are not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings given such terms in the Plan. 

2. Eligibility

The second sentence of Section 4 of the Plan is hereby deleted from the Plan in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

For purposes of this §4, the term “Subsidiary” or “subsidiary corporation” shall mean (i) a subsidiary corporation of the Company as defined in§424(f) of the Code and the rules and regulations thereunder, and (ii) any limited liability company in which the Company or any such subsidiary corporation is the sole member. 

3. Effective Date; Construction

The effective date of this amendment is July 1, 2001, and this amendment shall be deemed to be a part of the Plan as of such date. In the event of any inconsistencies betweenthe provisions of the Plan and this amendment, the provisions of this amendment shall control. Except as modified by this amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect without change.
II

Calendar No. 568

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2073

To designate the United States courthouse that is scheduled to be constructed

in Concord, New Hampshire, as the ‘‘Warren B. Rudman United States

Courthouse’’, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 4 (legislative day, MAY 2), 1994

Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. GREGG, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. PELL,

Mr. WARNER, Mr. SIMON, Mr. KERRY, Mr. DOLE, Mr. LUGAR, Mr.

REID, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. BOND, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr.

CRAIG, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr.

COATS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. GORTON, and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

AUGUST 12 (legislative day, AUGUST 11), 1994

Reported by Mr. BAUCUS, without amendment

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse that is scheduled

to be constructed in Concord, New Hampshire, as the

‘‘Warren B. Rudman United States Courthouse’’, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 2073 RS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF WARREN B. RUDMAN UNITED

2 STATES COURTHOUSE.

3 The United States courthouse that (as of the date

4 of enactment of this Act) is scheduled to be constructed

5 in Concord, New Hampshire, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Warren B. Rudman United States Court7 house’’.

8 SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

9 Any reference in a law, regulation, document, record,

10 map, or other paper of the United States to the courthouse

11 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

12 to the ‘‘Warren B. Rudman United States Courthouse’’.

Calendar No. 568

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2073

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse that is

States Courthouse’’, and for other purposes.Hampshire, as the ‘‘Warren B. Rudman Unitedscheduled to be constructed in Concord, New

AUGUST 12 (legislative day, AUGUST 11), 1994

Reported without amendment
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian Lopez, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 533]

Appeals having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered December 22, 2015, and a judgment of the same court (Michael Sonberg, J.), rendered February 16, 2016, said appeals 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 judgments so appealed from be and the same are hereby affirmed.

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Maz-zarelli, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Oscar Schaffino, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 270]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered November 26, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of 11 counts of attempted disseminating indecent *631material to minors in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of one to three years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Initially, we find that there was overwhelming evidence, from multiple sources, establishing defendant’s identity as the person who engaged in sexually-related communications with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl, and defendant’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. Defendant did not preserve his argument that the evidence was insufficient to meet the statutory requirement that he “importune[ ], invite[ ] or induce! ]” a minor to, as pertinent here, engage in sexual acts with him (Penal Law § 235.22 [2]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits, and likewise reject defendant’s weight of the evidence argument on this issue. Defendant expressly and repeatedly asked his intended victim to meet him for sexual contact, and the context clearly shows that defendant was not merely engaging in fantasy, but was trying to lure the victim into meeting with him for sexual activity *(see People v Foley,*94 NY2d 668, 681 [2000], *cert denied*531 US 875 [2000]). Defendant’s contentions notwithstanding, beyond “importuning, inviting, or inducing,” the statute does not require that the defendant have taken concrete steps to meet the minor. In any event, in Internet and phone communications, defendant repeatedly asked the intended victim about the possibility of arranging a meeting.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Alfonso Amelio, Petitioner, v Douglas E. Hoffman et al., Respondents.

[50 NYS3d 284]

The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is unanimously ordered that the application be and the same hereby is denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

Motion for a preliminary injunction denied.
# Mandatory LMS training addresses extremism

/ Published March 24, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency civilians and service members are being asked to rededicate themselves to the oath they took upon entering public service in new mandatory training that addresses extremist and dissident ideologies within the Defense Department.

“Upholding Our Constitution: DLA Extremism Stand-Down” has been assigned to employees’ learning plans in the Learning Management System and was created in response to a Feb. 5 memorandum from Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III ordering DOD-wide attention to extremism in the ranks. Employees have until April 30 to complete the training.  

In opening remarks, DLA Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic describes racism, bigotry and white supremacy as uncomfortable topics that must be addressed because they undermine DLA’s inclusive culture. 

“We value our diverse workforce and welcome a multitude of opinions and ideas. Conversely, we denounce destructive ideologies that encourage discrimination, hate or harassment against others,” she says in the video. She encourages employees to help each other listen and share ideas. 

The training features a presentation on extremism and its dangers using examples and images as well as information on employees’ responsibility to report extremism with instruction on reporting procedures. Remarks are also included by the secretary of defense, DLA Senior Enlisted Leader Army Command Sgt. Major Tomeka O’Neal and Vice Director Brad Bunn, who notes in the training that he first took the oath over 30 years ago when he was appointed as a summer clerk for the National Park Service in Washington, D.C. 

“Because we each took an oath to uphold the law, support and defend the Constitution, and to do our jobs to the best of our ability, all military service members and public servants are expected to be guided in their actions by a strong moral compass,” Bunn says, alluding to values like integrity, ethics, honor, courage and loyalty. 

The training supports what Austin described in his memo as the first step of what he believes must be a concerted effort to better educate employees on the scope of extremism and to develop ways to eliminate corrosive effects that extremist ideology and conduct have on the workforce. 

DOD Instruction 1325.06, “Handling Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces,” prohibits military members from actively advocating for and participating in supremacist, extremist or criminal gang doctrine, ideology or causes. The oaths taken by civil servants and service members have minor differences but common threads. 

The DLA training concludes with a voluntary survey, and results will be distributed to leaders by major subordinate command and directorate.
Exhibit 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-9354 and 333-139512) pertaining to employees stock option plans of Elbit Systems Ltd. of our reports dated March 10, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Elbit Systems Ltd. and subsidiaries and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Elbit Systems Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2008.



By:

/s/ Kost Forer Gabbay & KasiererKost Forer Gabbay & KasiererA member of Ernst & Young Global


Haifa, Israel, March 12, 2009