alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA General Counsel honors employee accomplishments

/ Published Aug. 19, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Several employees from the Defense Logistics Agency Office of General Counsel garnered kudos for their achievements during a July 22 virtual town hall for agencywide legal staff.

DLA General Counsel Matthew Pausch presented the awards, which recognized DLA’s top attorneys, paraprofessionals, teams and more. Peer recognition is the key reward for honorees’ accomplishments, Pausch said.

Awards were:

**DLA Attorney of the Year – Jason Morgan, senior counsel for procurement fraud and business integrity at DLA Aviation**

Morgan identified risks and spearheaded efforts to mitigate agency vulnerabilities in procurement processes. He led the DLA Aviation Fraud Team in identifying suspects who had exploited vulnerabilities in the General Service Administration’s commercial and government entity code registration process and system for award management. Morgan’s efforts led to the recovery of $134,012.00. As of April, Morgan and his team also recommended debarment for 72 parties; ordered restitution in the amount of $32,772,444.06; and achieved criminal sentencing for 15 bad actors.

**DLA Paraprofessional of the Year – Garrett Harms, DLA Headquarters legal administrative specialist**

Harms implemented agencywide changes to the Automated Workflow and Reporting System and advanced DLA’s achievements in the Electronically Stored Information Discovery and Disclosure Program.

**DLA Practice Group of the Year Award – Liviya Piccione-Sand, Fiscal Law Practice Group chair, DLA Headquarters**

Piccione-Sand ensured consistency in agencywide fiscal law opinions. She trained DLA legal experts on current fiscal law decisions and relevant agency guidance such as G-invoicing, and led a 60-memer Office of General Counsel practice group.**DLA Excellence in Leadership Award – Michael Wilson, DLA Troop Support supervisory supply chain counsel**

Wilson handled employment matters for more than 2,500 employees. He also responded to command concerns about contractual remedies for dress clothing delinquencies on several high-visibility programs, including the adoption of a new Army dress uniform.

**DLA Legal Team of the Year Award**
      - DLA Land and Maritime Attorneys Alicia Ramsdell, Christine Roark and Kathy Sweat provided legal advice and counsel to support a Defense Department $800 million-plus, multiple-award contract for interconnection equipment including cables, connections and wiring harnesses.
      - The Supreme Litigation Team – Attorneys Steven Herrera, Max Carrion and Kari Scheck from DLA Troop Support, Deputy Chief Counsel John Hart from DLA Land and Maritime, and Contract Litigation Chief Dan Poling from DLA Headquarters. The group litigated five high-profile claims through the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. DLA received a favorable decision in late May, resulting in substantial savings to the government.
#### 1626 2nd Ave LLC et al., Respondents, v National Specialty Insurance Co., Inc., et al., Defendants, and Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[48 NYS3d 596]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered July 25, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendants Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. and U.S. Adjustment Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action to recover losses resulting from a flood at a mixed-use building, plaintiff 1626’s business interruption losses sustained due to its resulting inability to collect rent from its commercial tenant were covered under the plain terms of the relevant policy. Defendants’ various theories as to why plaintiff may not recover from them are laden with factual questions and particularly inappropriate for resolution prior to the completion of discovery. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion as premature *(see Brooks v Somerset Surgical Assoc.,*106 AD3d 624 [1st Dept 2013]; CPLR 3212 [f]).

We have considered the remaining contentions, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Kapnick, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
#### Verna Brunson, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

[52 NYS3d 882]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), entered May 22, 2015, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Metropolitan Transportation Authority which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff alleged that on September 28, 2012, at approximately 10:40 a.m., she was a passenger on a Q40 bus, and when the bus was at a bus stop on 143rd Street near the intersection of 130th Avenue in Queens, she was caused to fall violently to the floor and sustained serious personal injuries. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the defendants New York City Transit Authority and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (hereinafter the MTA; hereinafter together the Authority defendants), alleging that they were negligent in, among other things, the ownership, maintenance, and control of the subject bus. The Authority defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them, arguing that they did not own, operate, maintain, manage, or control the subject bus. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

*1190In support of their motion, the Authority defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them by demonstrating that they did not own, operate, maintain, or control the subject bus, that the subject bus was owned and operated by nonparty MTA Bus Company, and that the MTA is not vicariously liable for the torts of its subsidiaries such as MTA Bus Company *(see*Public Authorities Law § 1266 [5]; *Fridman v New York City Tr. Auth.,*131 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2015]; *Mayayev v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. Bus,*74 AD3d 910, 911 [2010]; *Rampersaud v Metropolitan Transp. Auth. of the State of N.Y.,*73 AD3d 888, 888 [2010]; *Emerick v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*272 AD2d 150, 150 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Fridman v New York City Tr. Auth.,*131 AD3d at 1203-1204).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the Authority defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.
2017-0523.

#### State v. Ross.

Ottawa App. No. OT-16-004, 2017-Ohio-675. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Kennedy, O’Neill, and Fischer, JJ., dissent.
162 A.3d 1045

#### IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM B. GALLAGHER, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 249671968)

June 16, 2017

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 16-254 and DRB 16-296, recommending on the records certified to the Board pursuant to *Rule*1:20-14(f)(default by respondent), that WILLIAM B. GALLAGHER, formerly of ASBURY PARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1968, and who has been temporarily suspended from the practice of law since January 30, 2015, be disbarred for violating *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect), *RPC*1.1(b) (pattern of neglect), *RPC*1.3 (failure to act with diligence), *RPC*1.4(b)(failure to communicate with client), *RPC*1.15(a)(knowing misappropriation of client and escrow funds and failure to safeguard funds), *RPC*1.15(b)(failure to promptly notify a client or third party on the receipt of funds and to promptly deliver those funds to the client or third party), *RPC*1.15(d)(recordkeeping violations), *RPC*5.5(a)(1)(practicing law while ineligible), *RPC*8.1(a)(knowing making a false statement of material fact), *RPC*8.1(b)(failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority), *RPC*8.4(c)(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), *RPC*8.4(d)(conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and the principles of *In re Wilson,*81 *N.J.*451, 409 A.2d 1153 (1979), and *In re Hollendonner,*102 *N.J.*21, 504 A.2d 1174 (1985);

And WILLIAM B. GALLAGHER having failed to appear on the Order directing him to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And good cause appearing;

*338It is ORDERED that WILLIAM B. GALLAGHER be disbarred, effective immediately, and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys;

ORDERED that WILLIAM B. GALLAGHER be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that WILLIAM B. GALLAGHER comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
### bOf:

## os-T:**1tf1(P-l~**

# ~~~~~~ 

# Gogebic-Iron County Airport

GOGEBIC-IRON AIRPORT BOARD E5560 Airport Road Ironwood, Michigan 49938 Phone: 906-932-3121

FAX: 906-932-4401 Joseph Bonovetz, Chairman Duane R. DuRay, Manager Mary Lou Nyderek, Secretary Robert Berg Jim Oliver Don Erspamer Brian Tarro LeRoy Kangas John Wiita Bob Morin e-mail: iwd@chartermi.net

January 11, 2010
Dennis DeVany Essential Air Services Division, X-53 DOT Office ofAviationAnalysis, Room 6401 400 Seventh St., SW Washington, DC 20590
Mr. DeVany,
As you are well aware, the Gogebic-Iron County Airport will once again be going through airline selection to fulfill the essential air service agreements. Overthe past couple ofyears we have experienced several hardships in regard to our current air carrier. The current flight schedule for Great Lakes Airlines inhibits ourtraveling public from access to convenient, connecting flights outofMilwaukee. Theyhave also exhibited several issues with flight crews, mechanical reliability, and continuity within their own operations and the ManisteeMilwaukee- Ironwood flights
Wehave been very fortunate to be chosen to receivethe Small CommunityAir Service Grant for advertising buteven with such an aggressive marketing campaign we have been unable to increase the ridership out ofIronwood. 

### In fact, ourboarding have substantially decreased since the onset ofGreat Lakes Airlines. Ibelieve the main contributing factor to declines in ridership stems from poorflight schedules out ofIronwood. A supporting example to a favorable flight schedule could be Manistee Airport's ridership increases, Ihave watched as theirpassengerboarding have climbed due to their earlymorning departures and late evening arrivals.
Ido realize that the current economic situation and the declining number ofessential air service carriers is a contributing factor to your flexibility when considering air carriers, equipment, and flight schedules. We would like to stress the fact that ourboarding have declined over 65 percent in the past two years and I would hope you would take flight schedules into consideration when publishing a request for proposals for Ironwood. Sincerely,

Duane R. DuRay Airport Manager
No. 09-1522.

#### William C. Brown, Petitioner v. Progress Energy.

562 U.S. 838, 131 S. Ct. 180,

178 L. Ed. 2d 42,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5779.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 364 Fed. Appx. 556.
#### Schneider v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing

03/30/2016

739 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 118 A.3d 496
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Dwayne Rayshaun Wilson v. Sterling Shire Apartments

Appellate case number: 01-17-00785-CV

Trial court case number: 1098747

Trial court: Harris County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Appellant, Dwayne Rayshaun Wilson, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s 

final judgment in a forcible detainer action brought by appellee, Sterling Shire Apartments. 

In his notice of appeal, appellant named Sterling Shire, its attorney, Duke Amos, and the 

Honorable Robert Lloyd, presiding judge of Harris County Civil Court of Law No. 4, as 

appellees. An appellee, however, must be a party to the trial court’s final judgment and 

someone against whom the appellant raises issues or points of error in the appellant’s brief. 

See Gray v. Allen, 41 S.W.3d 330, 331 n.2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.); see also 

Showbiz Multimedia, LLC v. Mountain States Mortg. Ctrs., Inc., 303 S.W.3d 769, 771 n.3 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.). Although appellant raises issues against 

them in his brief, neither Amos nor Judge Lloyd are parties to the final judgment in the 

underlying case. Therefore, Amos and Judge Lloyd are not “appellees” or otherwise parties 

to this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss as moot (1) “Putative Appellees the Honorable Roberta 

Lloyd-County Court at Law No. 4’s Opposed Motion to Dismiss,” (2) “Putative Appellees 

the Honorable Roberta Lloyd-County Court at Law No. 4’s Opposed Motion to Stay 

Briefing Deadline,” and (3) Amos’s “Co-Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss.”

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: January 25, 2018
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PHILLIP FOXX,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 392 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
# DLA Distribution hosts United Kingdom Ministry of Defence’s Director of Logistics

/ Published Nov. 12, 2019
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Roger West, Director Logistics at United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, visited Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Oct. 10. The purpose of the visit was to receive an overview of DLA, learn of and discuss DLA Distribution’s mission and deployable capabilities and receive a tour of DLA Distribution Susquehanna Pennsylvania’s Eastern Distribution Center.

Following an office call with Twila C. Gonzales, SES, deputy commander, DLA Distribution, West received an informal command brief. Topics of discussion around the table included defining policy, vendor compliance, audit responsibility, suspended stock and its challenges, strategic and interagency partnerships, DLA’s Strategic Plan and how Distribution recognizes the importance of the people and culture pillar of that plan. 

The discussion prompted West to ask the question “How do you change culture?”

Perry L. Knight, chief of staff, DLA Distribution, provided, “You measure it. We use a Denison survey—completely anonymous—and we measure how well we’re doing based on feedback from employees. We recognize a problem and hold leaders accountable. Five years ago we focused on speed, now we focus on quality.”

Gonzales shared with West the information taken from the survey largely contributes to the success of DLA Distribution. “We use what we learn from that survey to improve our business operations.”

West then toured DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania’s Eastern Distribution Center—the largest warehouse in the Department of Defense—where he saw various operational areas in action.
No. 12-8363.

#### Brown *v.*Bauman, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31545-31546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15298]


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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION


Agency Information Collection Activities; Request for Emergency 
Review by the Office of Management and Budget

    The Social Security Administration publishes a list of information 
collection packages that will require clearance by OMB in compliance 
with P.L. 104-13 effective October 1, 1995, The Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995. The information collection listed below has been submitted to 
OMB for emergency clearance. OMB approval has been requested by June 
18, 1998: 0960-NEW. Survey of Widows(ers) Eligible for Higher 
Retirement Benefits. The Social Security Administration will survey a 
sample of widow(er) beneficiaries over the age of 70 to determine 
whether they would file for the higher retirement benefit for which 
they appear eligible, if the opportunity to file for this benefit was 
explained in a person contact. Two attempts to contact the 
beneficiaries by letter have already been made, but the beneficiaries 
have not filed for the additional benefits, which could be a 
substantial increase. The information collected from this sample 
population will provide the empirical basis for reaching a decision 
regarding whether some or all of the approximately 23,000 beneficiaries 
in the entire population should be personally contacted. The 
respondents are a sample of over age 70 SSA title II beneficiaries who 
are eligible to receive a higher retirement benefit.
    Number of Respondents: 390.
    Frequencey of Response: 1.
    Average Burden Per Response: 10 Minutes.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 65 hours.
    To receive a copy of the form or clearance packages, call the SSA 
Reports Clearance Officer on (410) 965-4145 or write to him at the 
address listed below. Written comments and recommendations regarding 
the information collection (s) should be directed to the OMB Desk 
Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses:

(OMB) Office of Management and Budget, OIRA, Attn: Laura Oliven, New 
Executive Office Building, Room 10230, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 
20503
(SSA) Social Security Administration, DCFAM, Attn: Frederick W.

[[Page 31546]]

Brickenkamp, 6401 Security Blvd, 1-A-21 Operations Bldg., Baltimore, MD 
21235.

    Dated: June 3, 1998.
Frederick W. Brickenkamp,
Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-15298 Filed 6-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-M
# C&T provides boots ‘on the ground’ to firefighters combating West Coast wildland fires

/ Published Sept. 21, 2020
PHILADELPHIA, 
Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support’s Clothing and Textiles team provided boots to the Army National Guard in support of mobilized firefighters combating West Coast wildland fires.

More than 700 pairs of hot weather Army combat boots have been delivered to customers as of September 17, typically within 24 to 96 hours of ordering, said Ted Kelly, C&T customer relationship management cell supervisor.

“This was a very labor intensive effort and we jumped through hoops to make this happen for the customer,” Kelly said.

Each order was manually processed by customer account specialist Colleen Ford, who ensured orders placed through FEDMALL were accurately captured into DLA’s strategic management system. Ford also worked with DLA representatives from the Customer Interaction Center, Distribution and liaisons at third party logistics vendor Lion Vallen Industries and U.S. Northern Command for continued item visibility.

With most of the boots stored at LVI in Pendergrass, Georgia, the team ensured they were available at depots near customers, and in some cases boots were delivered directly to them, Ford explained.

“My job is to see that customers receive items in a timely fashion,” Ford said. “It’s an awesome feeling to see that the customers get what they need on time because they’re putting their lives on the line, just like the warfighter, to put these fires out.”

The DLA team often worked overtime including late evenings and weekends, to fill orders, Ford said. They also participated in tri-weekly calls with representatives from the CIC, U.S. Forest Service, Army North and DLA Distribution.

Ralph Laurie, DLA liaison for USNORTHCOM and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, works closely with two Army and Marine battalions under USNORTHCOM using the boots to help fight the fires.

“The biggest concern with these units is if they don’t have the right boots, they can’t fight fires,” Laurie said.

Laurie described the mission of providing boots as demanding with high visibility from senior military leaders and tight delivery deadlines. Yet, every order is fulfilled on time, Laurie said.

Laurie thanked Kelly and the DLA team for their efforts completing this mission.

“At NORTHCOM, I get the credit for the work that many quiet professionals at DLA do,” Laurie said.  “Thank you for having such a truly dedicated team of professionals available to make miracles happen.  I want you to know that I don't take them for granted.”
#### Cheryl Jacobus, Appellant, v Donald J. Trump et al., Respondents.

[64 NYS3d 889]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered January 27, 2017, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s defamation action for failure to state a claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The challenged statements made orally and by Twitter by *453defendants were nonactionable *(see Silsdorf v Levine,*59 NY2d 8 [1983], *cert denied*464 US 831 [1983]).

Whether alleged statements are susceptible of a defamatory meaning imputed to them is, in the first instance, a question of law for the courts to decide *(see Aronson v Wiersma,*65 NY2d 592, 593 [1985]; *Silsdorf,*59 NY2d at 13). The alleged defamatory statements are too vague, subjective, and lacking in precise meaning (i.e., unable to be proven true or false) to be actionable. The immediate context in which the statements were made would signal to the reasonable reader or listener that they were opinion and not fact *(see generally Gross v New York Times Co.,*82 NY2d 146 [1993]).

Plaintiffs defamation per se claim was correctly dismissed in the absence of actionable factual allegations that tended to disparage her in the way of her profession, trade or business *(see Herlihy v Metropolitan Museum of Art,*214 AD2d 250, 261 [1st Dept 1995]).

Concur—Richter, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Oing and Singh, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CORY J. WILLIS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 94 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of July, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
2017-0690.

#### State ex rel. Byington Builders, Ltd. v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-407, 2017-Ohio-2623. This case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01. Appellant shall file a brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.