alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 09-10438.

#### Maurice Haltiwanger, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 802, 131 S. Ct. 81,

178 L. Ed. 2d 2,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6503.

October 4, 2010.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563, 130 S. Ct. 2577, 177 L. Ed. 2d 68 (2010).

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.

Same case below, 356 Fed. Appx. 918.
CAAP-13-0001782

#### Steingrebe v. Steingrebe

Affirmed
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 07760

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

07760\07760_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

x 07760\07760_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

07760\07760_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

07760\07760_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 07760\07760_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07760\07760_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07760\07760_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07760\Supporting Documentation\07760_Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
# Changes occurring on Defense Supply Center Richmond

/ Published May 26, 2021
RICHMOND, Va, 
Those working within Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Planning Process Directorate on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, have new, temporary homes. More than 220 people moved from Building 31, H Bay and Building 32, H and M Bays into the four huge trailers in the parking lot in front of bldg. 59 along G Road. The move took place between May 3-10.

David Gibson, site director for DLA Installation Management at Richmond said military construction (MILCON) plans for the DLA Aviation Operations Center affected the amount of space available to meet additional missions that were added after the MILCON planning phase.  Therefore, trailers were added to Parking Lot 9 to meet all of DLA Aviation’s administrative office space requirements.  The MILCON plans included the demolition of Building 33 as the first part of the construction contract.   

Gibson also stated demolition of Bldg. 33, making way for construction of phase two of the DLA Operations Center, has begun. The demolition and drilling of geothermal well fields and ultimately the construction of the new structure is scheduled to take place over the next 2 1/2 years with a projected completion date of December 2023. The Army Corps of Engineers is in charge of the project.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrell Herring, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 654]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chin-Brandt, J.), imposed June 23, 2015, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; *People*
      *1149
      *v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]; *People v Brown,*122 AD3d 133, 145 [2014]), and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Austin, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: March 10, 2005 |  | /s/MICHAEL D. WEBBMichael D. Webb Chief Executive Officer                                                                          
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 10, 2005 |  | /s/PEYTON J. MARSHALL, PH.D.Peyton J. Marshall, Ph.D. Senior Vice President, Finance and
Administration
and Chief Financial Officer

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

---
Exhibit 12

QWEST CORPORATION    CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES  (UNAUDITED)

Three
Months
Ended
March 31,

Years Ended December 31,2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004Income from continuing operations before income taxes, discontinued operations and cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles

$
549

$
2,267

$
2,440

$
1,882

$
1,628

$
1,871Add: estimated fixed charges


165


671


682


700


700


686Add: estimated amortization of capitalized interest


3


12


10


10


12


12Less: interest capitalized


(2
)

(14
)

(12
)

(12
)

(10
)

(12
)Total earnings available for fixed charges

$
715

$
2,936

$
3,120

$
2,580

$
2,330

$
2,557Estimate of interest factor on rentals

$
17

$
68

$
62

$
72

$
82

$
75Interest expense, including amortization of premiums, discounts and debt issuance costs(1)


146


589


608


616


608


599Interest capitalized


2


14


12


12


10


12Total fixed charges

$
165

$
671

$
682

$
700

$
700

$
686Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


4.3


4.4


4.6


3.7


3.3


3.7


---

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 12
                     U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                  RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                        (Dollars in Millions)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                   Quarter Ended
                                                 9/30/98    9/30/97
------------------------------------------     -----------  --------
<S>                                            <C>          <C>   

Income before income taxes                     $      579$      578
Interest expense (net of amounts
  capitalized)                                        103        93
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                       14        16
                                               -----------  --------
Earnings                                       $      696   $   687

Interest expense                               $      109   $    97
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                       14        16
                                               -----------  --------
Fixed charges                                  $      123   $   113

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                   5.66      6.08
------------------------------------------     -----------  --------

                                                  Nine Months Ended
                                                 9/30/98    9/30/97
------------------------------------------     -----------  --------
Income before income taxes                     $    1,640   $ 1,713
Interest expense (net of amounts
  capitalized)                                        288       282
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                       46        48
                                               -----------  --------
Earnings                                       $    1,974   $ 2,043

Interest expense                               $      305   $   297
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                       46        48
                                               -----------  --------
Fixed charges                                  $      351   $   345

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                   5.62      5.92
------------------------------------------     -----------  --------
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1



EXHIBIT 12.1 - COMPUTATION OF CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                    Year Ended  December 31, 
                                                      ----------------------------------------------------
                                                        1998       1997       1996       1995       1994
                                                      --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
                                                       (000's)   (000's)     (000's)   (000's)    (000's)
<S>                                                   <C>        <C>         <C>       <C>       <C>     

    Income before provision for income taxes          $ 32,322   $ 39,763   $136,280   $ 68,607   $159,216

    Add:

      Interest on term loans and notes, net of
        interest capitalized                            92,920    100,192     16,411       --         --

      Amortization of debt costs                         3,067      4,741        661       --         --

      Portion of rents representative of interest        2,629      1,394        628      1,988      1,735
                                                      --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
      Income as adjusted                              $130,938   $146,090   $153,980   $ 70,595   $160,951


    Fixed Charges:

      Interest on term loans and notes                $ 93,639   $100,192   $ 16,411   $   --     $   --


      Amortization of debt costs                         3,067      4,741        661       --         --

      Portion of rents representative of interest        2,629      1,394        628      1,988      1,735
                                                      --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
    Total fixed charges                               $ 99,335   $106,327   $ 17,700   $  1,988   $  1,735


    Ratio of Consolidated Earnings to Fixed Charges       1.32       1.37       8.70       35.5       92.8
                                                      ========   ========   ========   ========   ========
</TABLE>
#### Scrip v. Washington County Juvenile Probation; Washington County Jovenile Probation, In re

09/06/2016

89 WAL (2016)

Denied
# DLA Distribution presents Security Civilian of the Year award to Tyrell Rice

/ Published Sept. 15, 2020
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Tyrell Rice, security officer at Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Anniston, Alabama, was awarded the Security Civilian of the Year award for actions taken to better ensure the continued safety of workers and sensitive information.

Rice developed specific procedures for vendors – like maintenance and janitorial staff – to obtain visitor passes, and for those same vendors to report when someone should be removed from the access list. The enhancements made to the policies by Rice allow for better control of access to DDAA facilities.

In coordination with DDAA Human Resources and the appropriate operation security teams, Rice completed security briefings and training with personnel to ensure compliance with Operations Security standards.

Rice took the lead in procuring a paper shredding contract to ensure that all documents were properly shredded to avoid any possible breach of OPSEC, further ensuring the security of DDAA.

Rice also built relationships with co-located police forces on Anniston Army Depot to ensure a smooth communication and understanding of each group’s unique policies and procedures.

The work Rice has done to ensure a safe and secure work environment, and support efforts to maintain OPSEC, is a critical step in DLA’s mission to always place the warfighter first.
#### CMRC, Ltd., Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 598]

Judgment, Court of Claims, State of New York (Stephen Mignano, J.), entered on or about December 20, 2002, awarding claimant the principal sum of $5,854,550, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award of compensation for claimant’s condemned parcel was based upon the appropriate factors and the court’s findings were within the range of the evidence *(see Matter of City of New York [Reiss],*55 NY2d 885, 886 [1982]). While the property was under the cloud of condemnation, it was properly valued upon the premise that its highest and best use remained industrial rather than commercial because, among other reasons, nearby public transportation was lacking, the retail and art gallery growth in the area did not advance as far west as claimant’s property, and a large, recently built recreational complex did not have the anticipated beneficial economic ripple effect. The court properly valued the building signage at the actual rental *(see Motsiff v State of New York,*32 AD2d 729 [1969], *affd 26*NY2d 692 [1970]) and properly declined to include any value for the exterior wall area that had not been rented for at least five years prior to the appropriation of the parcel. The capitalization rate applied was within the range of expert opinion *(see Matter of Habern Realty Co. v Tax Commn. of City of N.Y.,*102 AD2d 302, 309 [1984]), and there is no basis to disturb the trial court’s findings on this issue. The degree of comparability of other rentals proposed by the appraisers in seeking to assign an income for claimant’s parcel as a predicate for determining its value, including the adjustments to value made by the court, are factual assessments within the discretion of the trial court *(Matter of County of Broome,*133 AD2d 984, 986 [1987]; *see also*
      *304
      *Levin v State of New York,*13 NY2d 87, 92 [1963]), and its determinations were within the permissible ambit of such discretion.

We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
# DLA Troop Support helps 1st Stryker Brigade keep its chill

/ Published July 31, 2020
PHILADELPHIA, 
The Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support is helping an Army brigade stay cool during training as the 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, based at Fort Carson, Colorado, prepares for training exercises at the Fort Irwin National Training Center in San Bernardino County, California. 

DLA Troop Support received the urgent request for 365 coolers on May 21, said Tom Hall, the Subsistence supply chain Group Rations and Equipment branch chief. 

The coolers are part of a critical risk mitigation plan to help soldiers cope with the extreme temperatures at the training site which can reach above 115 degrees, Hall said. 

“Soldiers will be wearing full combat gear and, potentially, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense protective equipment during this time, and the risk of overheating is very high,” Hall said.

The required delivery date was July 26, but the coolers arrived at the NTC on July 20, he said.

“The Customer and Supplier Support teams worked together to ensure the proper Food Fielding and Food Service Equipment were procured, stocked and delivered to customers in a timely manner,” Hall said. 

While procuring coolers is not unusual, the large amount in a short time span was unique to this order, he said.

“It’s just a small part of what the [Food Fielding Equipment team] does,” Hall said.

The 1st SBCT performed a number of exercises in June to prepare for a training event at the NTC, which included tactical exercises, engagement area development, sustainment operations, medical operations, command post training, a live-fire exercise and other tasks. 

“All of this is keyed in to prepare us for the unexpected at NTC,” Maj. William Yang, field artillery officer and executive officer, 1st SBCT, said in an article in The Fort Carson Mountaineer. “The idea is, if we make it strenuous and intense enough now, our Soldiers will be conditioned to be successful at NTC.”
(August 8, 2017)

#### In the Matter of Daniella A. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Appellant; Jessica A., Respondent.

[60 NYS3d 116]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Valerie Pels, J.), entered on or about July 1, 2015, which granted respondent mother’s motion to modify an order of disposition entered on or about July 17, 2014, to the extent of entering in its stead a suspended judgment (the conditions of which were deemed satisfied), dismissing the neglect petition, vacating the finding of neglect, and releasing the subject children to the mother’s care, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

For the reasons we explained in *Matter of Leenasia C.*(Lamarriea C.—Maxie *B.)*(154 AD3d 1 [2017] [decided simultaneously herewith]), we reject petitioner agency’s argument that, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1061, the Family Court was not authorized to modify the dispositional order to the extent of *427granting a retroactive suspended judgment. We also find that the mother’s strict compliance with the dispositional order, and her clear dedication to ameliorating the conditions that led to the neglect finding, constituted “good cause” warranting the relief requested *(see Matter of Bernalysa K. [Richard S.],*118 AD3d 885, 885 [2d Dept 2014]; *see also Matter of Alexander L. [Andrea L.],*109 AD3d 767, 767 [1st Dept 2013], *lv dismissed*22 NY3d 1056 [2014]; *Matter of Araynah B.,*34 Misc 3d 566, 582 [Fam Ct, Kings County 2011]). Moreover, in vacating the neglect finding, the Family Court properly took into account the mother’s ability to find work in her chosen field, as the mother’s employability is in the best interests of the children *(see Matter of Whitley v*Whitley, 33 AD3d 810, 810 [2d Dept 2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 809 [2007]).

Given the foregoing determination, we do not reach the parties’ argument regarding whether dismissal of the neglect petition is appropriate under Family Court Act § 1051 (c).

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

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7691

ELMER NATHANIEL ADAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-02-1137-7)

Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 20, 2004

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elmer Nathaniel Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Elmer Nathaniel Adams seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000). The order is appealable only if a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Adams has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
March 22, 2013

No. 12-416.

#### Federal Trade Commission *v.*Actavis, Inc., et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted *sub nom. Federal Trade Commission*v. *Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., ante,*p. 1066.] Motion of the Solicitor General to unseal volume II of the joint appendix granted.

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Exhibit 32.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   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 MOCON, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert L. Demorest, as
Chief Executive Officer of MOCON, Inc., and Dane D. Anderson, as Chief Financial
Officer of MOCON, Inc., each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 MOCON,
Inc.

                                                 By: /s/ Robert L. Demorest
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                 Name:   Robert L. Demorest
                                                 Title:  Chief Executive Officer

                                                 By: /s/ Dane D. Anderson
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                 Name:   Dane D. Anderson
                                                 Title:  Chief Financial Officer
#### Wang v LSUC

App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 79492(U)

denied
#### Com. v. Wallace

04/12/2016

703 EAL (2015)

Denied

No. 127 EDM 2015