alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Moses John, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 377]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Módica, J.), rendered April 23, 2013, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.

As the defendant correctly contends, the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal contempt in the second degree. The conviction arose from the defendant’s alleged violation of an order of protection when he went to the complainant’s home, at her invitation, to help with their children, and an altercation ensued.

“ ‘To sustain a finding of. . . criminal contempt based on an alleged violation of a court order it is necessary to establish that a lawful order of the court clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate was in effect’ and the order was disobeyed by a person having knowledge of that order” *(People v Roblee,*70 AD3d 225, 227 [2009], quoting *Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y. v Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y.,*70 NY2d 233, 240 [1987]; *see*Penal Law § 215.50 [3]). The defendant’s knowledge of the terms of the order, as opposed to mere issuance of the order, is an essential element of the crime *(see People v Inserra,*4 NY3d 30, 32 [2004]; *People v McCowan,*85 NY2d 985, 987 [1995]).

*890Here, the People presented evidence that the defendant had knowledge of the issuance of the order of protection, and was told generally by the Supreme Court: “You’re getting a full order of protection; no contact with the complaining witness.” However, there was no evidence that the order of protection, which was not signed by the defendant, was ever actually given to him, or that he was orally advised as to the contents of the order, including a handwritten condition that he would be in violation of the order if he came within 100 yards of the complainant, even if invited by her. Under these circumstances, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), there was insufficient evidence from which a rational jury could conclude that the defendant had written or oral notice of the contents of the order of protection and the conduct it prohibited *(see People v McCowan,*85 NY2d at 987; *People v Bulgin,*105 AD3d 551 [2013]; *cf. Matter of Er-Mei Y.,*29 AD3d 1013, 1016 [2006]).

The People’s remaining contention is without merit. In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions.

Chambers, J.P., Sgroi, Duffy and Bar-ros, JJ., concur.
# Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services names the first of two Culture Champion alternatives 

/ Published April 23, 2021
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Environmental Protection Specialist Chris Aguas was recently selected as an alternate Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services “Culture Champion.”

His selection to the rotating position was announced in a recent workforce note from command Acting Director Army Col. Franyate Taylor.

Aguas has been with DLA for eight years and currently serves at the Fort Riley property disposal site in Kansas.

“I currently live in a small rural town outside of the Fort Riley area with my wife, three kids, our two dogs, and our four chickens,” Aguas said. “I spend much of my time outdoors either fishing, kayaking, or getting ready for kids’ sports activities. When we are not at home, we are on the road with the camper in search of new adventures.”

“As an environmental protection specialist, it’s our duty to oversee and ensure the contractor’s overall performance adheres to the contract requirements, while also assisting the warfighters in the hazardous waste removal process,” Aguas said.

When asked what he likes about working for DLA, he said, “I like the traveling and temporary duty assignments. We get to go to some interesting places and create strong working relationships with customers.”

Aguas said this will be his first involvement in the culture team. He added that he is excited to be involved in something that has a positive effect on his work community.

One of Aguas’ favorite quotes is from the musician Henry Rollins: “No such thing as spare time, no such thing as free time, no such thing as down time, all you got is life time. Go!”
# DLA sends more protective equipment to Pacific troops 

/ Published April 28, 2020
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
The Defense Logistics Agency continues sending excess personal protective equipment to Pacific-based warfighters to limit the spread of COVID-19.

DLA Disposition Services recently sent 125,000 surgical masks to Marine Corps units deployed to Okinawa after previously shipping 50,000 masks to three aircraft carriers in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command region.

In all, the agency has provided almost half a million surgical and N95 masks that were considered Defense Department surplus before the pandemic. The items were recalled from DLA’s public sales contract holder, GovPlanet, and sent to military units, the U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Emergency Management Agency and other federal agencies.

“During these unprecedented times, we are all doing our best to support those battling COVID-19 on the front lines,” said Mike Cannon, Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services director. “We are working closely with our partners to ensure items get to those who need them. GovPlanet has done an inventory of all items they have acquired from us to find anything that may be useful to the pandemic response efforts.”

Other surplus medical supplies provided to military and federal agencies in March and April includes 24 ventilators for FEMA and Army medical teams, about 8,000 human remains pouches and over 41,000 protective suits also transferred to FEMA. The additional items are worth about $4.5 million.

Ben Waller, who directs operations at DLA Disposition Services sites in Northeast states where the pandemic has so far hit the hardest, said his employees continue to overcome challenges to quickly put helpful items in the hands of troops, first responders and medical professionals who need them the most.

“Our entire team is showing a collective brave face during a very dangerous pandemic,” he said. “We understand the seriousness of this situation, but our people are committed to executing the mission at hand while simultaneously taking care of our personal well-being.”
#### In the Matter of Kaylub T. Erik C. et al., Respondents; Mandy C., Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 708]

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Edward Yuskevich, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated October 15, 2015. The order, after a hearing, granted the petition of the maternal aunt and uncle to be appointed guardians of the subject child.

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

In September 2009, the subject child was placed in foster care with his maternal aunt and uncle (hereinafter together the petitioners) following the commencement of a neglect proceeding against the mother. In April 2010, the Family Court found that the mother neglected the child. In July 2014, the petitioners filed a petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to be appointed guardians of the child, which was opposed by the mother. In an order dated October 15, 2015, made after a hearing, the court granted the guardianship petition. The mother appeals from that order.

“As between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has the superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, or other like extraordinary circumstances,” and “[w]here extraordinary circumstances are present, the court must then consider the best interests of the child” *(Matter of Laura M. v Nicole N.,*143 AD3d 722, 722 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “The burden of proof is on the nonparent to prove such extraordinary circumstances” *(id.*at 722).

Here, the Family Court properly determined that the petitioners sustained their burden of demonstrating extraordi*863nary circumstances based on evidence that the mother suffered from a mental illness which had contributed to the child’s placement in foster care, that the mother lacked insight into her condition, and that the child was separated from the mother for an extended period of time and was closely bonded to the petitioners *(see Matter of Loukopoulos v Loukopoulos,*68 AD3d 1470, 1472 [2009]; *Matter of Johnson v Streich-McConnell,*66 AD3d 1526, 1527 [2009]; *Matter of Donohue v Donohue,*44 AD3d 1042, 1042 [2007]; *Matter of Koch v Andres,*299 AD2d 411, 412 [2002]; *Matter of Benjamin B.,*234 AD2d 457, 458 [1996]). Further, the court’s determination that an award of guardianship to the petitioners would be in the best interests of the subject child is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Laura M. v Nicole N.,*143 AD3d at 723).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly granted the petition to appoint the petitioners as the subject child’s guardians.

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.
#### Com. v. Buckley7

04/06/2016

04 EAL (2016)

7

. Justice DONOHUE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 135 A.3d 655
#### Stewart v. Fedex Exp.

11/17/2015

186 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 114 A.3d 424
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND THE CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         621,702
<SECURITIES>                                 4,630,849
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,939,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                   158,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,680,794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,355,751
<PP&E>                                       2,530,330
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,561,606
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,283,639
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,174,418
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       427,547
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,681,674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,283,639
<SALES>                                      4,064,002
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,064,002
<CGS>                                        1,323,701
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,323,701
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,280,944
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,459,357
<INCOME-TAX>                                   499,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            960,257
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   960,257
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
        


</TABLE>
# Four th Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

July 26, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00243

- CR
Emery Jay MENCHACA
, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court
, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20

- 06

- 0138

- CRA Honorable Lynn El lison , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

A ppellant’s brief was due on July 2 5, 2022. Before the due date, Appellant filed a first motion for a n extension of time to file the brief until September 26, 2022

. Appellant’s motion is granted

. Appellant’s brief is due on S eptember 26, 2022

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38. 6( d ). Any further motion for an extension of time to file the brief may be disfavored.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 26th day of July, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ
, Clerk of Court
Record of Di s cussion Docket No. FAA- Directo r ate Id e ntifier: -AD With whom outside the FAA has this action been di sc u sse d (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA , AOPA, ALPA , GAMA, etc)?

O RGAN I ZA TI ON PERSON CONTACTED DATE T OP I CS DISCUSSED 

### Boeing Barry Bannister 6/ 24114 No re sponse. A4A 

### Bob Ire land 6/24114 No response.

Other/Addit iona l In formation:
#### 253 East 62nd Street, LLC, Plaintiff, v Moluka Enterprises, LLC, Appellant, and Yolanda Queen et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And Other Actions.)

[56 NYS3d 314]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered December 24, 2015, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendants Douglas Elliman Property Management (Elliman) and Bellmarc Property Management Services (Bellmarc) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant Bellmarc entered into a contract with codefendant, Moluka Enterprises, to manage certain of Moluka’s properties. By order of the New York City Department of Buildings, one of Moluka’s properties was demolished. Plaintiff owned the building adjacent to the demolished premises and claims that its building was damaged during the demolition process. Following the demolition, Bellmarc was acquired by Elliman.

*490Bellmarc and Elliman established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they were not liable for any damage to plaintiff’s building because Bellmarc’s contract to manage the properties was with Moluka and thus, no duty was owed to plaintiff. It is well established that contractual obligations impose a duty only in favor of the prom-isee and intended third-party beneficiaries. Exceptions to this rule are where (1) the contracting party fails to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, thereby launching a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting parties’ duties; and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely *(see generally Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs.,*98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). There is no evidence that any of the above exceptions apply to the circumstances presented.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### Danyel J., Matter of (Leeann K.-G.)

4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1611

denied
# 60th LRS Materiel Management: You can’t fly without supply

/ Published April 25, 2021
TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS), 
The mission at **Travis Air Force Base** is the largest in the **Air Mobility Command** and the units’ responsibilities are spread out — some Airmen fly while others repair, but if you need a part, you trust the 60th Logistics Readiness Squadron Materiel Management Flight to get that part and get that aircraft back in the sky.“Our mission as the Materiel Management Flight is to provide 24/7 logistic support to the installation’s mission,” said Staff Sgt. Jorge Contreras Quineche, 60th LRS aircraft parts store supervisor.Materiel Management Flight comprises 147 Airmen; LRS has 300 Airmen.“Materiel Management Flight accounts and safeguards 32,000 assets valued at $2.2 million,” said 2nd Lt. Alexandria Valdez, 60th LRS customer support officer in charge. “We also manage five thousand weapons and 241 thousand mobility assets, valued at $80 million.”Materiel management provides asset storing, maintaining, issuing and reclaiming (or repairing), capabilities in support of the **C-17 Globemaster III** and **C-5 Galaxy** fleet, as well as the wing at large.“Our aircraft part store maintains readily deployable aircraft mission support kits for humanitarian and wartime contingencies,” Contreras Quineche said. “Our central storage section houses our aircraft parts, making them available to issue at a moment’s notice, while our individual protective equipment section equips the warfighters with body armor, weapons and mission oriented protective posture gear when tasked to deployment.”When the Air Force is called for humanitarian aid or a movement of troops, materiel management has everything organized and ready to go at a moment’s notice.“Our customer support section provides accurate data and high priority orders tracking in support of our weapons systems and tracking equipment accountability for every unit,” Contreras Quineche said. “Our flight service center manages the repair cycle return process for aircraft parts.”When you have a broken part on your car, you take your whole car to get fixed, but for aircraft parts, it’s much more of a process.“I help maintain a database for assets that are broken and getting repaired,” Senior Airman Jendra Maker, 60th LRS flight service center journeyman. “Either send it to a shop on base to get repaired, send it out to get repaired, or if it’s unrepairable, the item manager will give further guidance on where the part will go.”The flight service center also maintains a close relationship to Boeing, so close that their offices are connected. Having this relationship allows for a faster turnaround for C-17 assets, and eventually the **KC-46 Pegasus**. When the KC-46 arrives, Travis AFB won’t only be adding another fleet of aircraft, but the materiel management flight will be adding more parts to their storage warehouses.The KC-46 is projected to arrive on Travis AFB August of 2023.*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the U.S. Air Force website.*
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14861]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Letters of Authorization to Take Marine Mammals

AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of Letters of Authorization to take marine 
mammals incidental to oil and gas industry activities.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act of 1972, as amended, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service implementing regulations [50 CFR 18.27(f)(3)], notice is hereby 
given that Letters of Authorization to take polar bears and Pacific 
walrus incidental to oil and gas industry exploration, development, and 
production activities have been issued to the following companies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Company                  Activity           Date issued     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc...  Exploration......  May 12, 1998.        
Western Atlas Intl/Western      Exploration......  May 19, 1998.        
 Geophysical.                                                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. John W. Bridges at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine 
Mammals Management Office, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 
99503, (800) 362-5148 or (907) 786-3810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Letters of Authorization were issued in 
accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Rules and 
Regulations ``Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified 
Activities (58 FR 60402; November 16, 1993); modified and extended (60 
FR 42805; August 17, 1995).''

    Dated: May 21, 1998.
Robyn Thorson,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 98-14861 Filed 6-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2176

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a 5-year

extension of the medicare-dependent, small, rural hospital payment provisions, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 9 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

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

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide

for a 5-year extension of the medicare-dependent, small,

rural hospital payment provisions, 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,

3 SECTION 1. MEDICARE-DEPENDENT, SMALL, RURAL HOS4 PITAL PAYMENT EXTENSION.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—

6 (1) SPECIAL TREATMENT EXTENDED.—Section

7 1886(d)(5)(G) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

8 1395ww(d)(5)(G)) is amended—
2

•S 2176 IS

1 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘October 1,

2 1994’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 1999’’; and

3 (B) in clause (ii)(II), by striking ‘‘October

4 1, 1994’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 1999’’.

5 (2) PERMITTING HOSPITALS TO DECLINE RE6 CLASSIFICATION.—Section 13501(e)(2) of the Omni7 bus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.

8 1395ww note) is amended by striking ‘‘or fiscal year

9 1994’’ and inserting ‘‘, fiscal year 1994, fiscal year

10 1995, fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997, fiscal year

11 1998, or fiscal year 1999’’.

12 (3) EXTENSION OF TARGET AMOUNT.—Section

13 1886(b)(3)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

14 1395ww(b)(3)(D)) is amended—

15 (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by

16 striking ‘‘March 31, 1993’’ and inserting ‘‘Sep17 tember 30, 1999’’;

18 (B) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘1994’’ and

19 inserting ‘‘1999’’; and

20 (C) in clause (iii)—

21 (i) by striking ‘‘1994’’ and inserting

22 ‘‘1999’’; and

23 (ii) by striking ‘‘1993’’ and inserting

24 ‘‘1998’’.
3

•S 2176 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

2 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact3 ment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

Æ