alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 09-10511.

#### Louis Anthony Wilbon, Petitioner v. Lawrence Baran, et al.

562 U.S. 845, 131 S. Ct. 85,

178 L. Ed. 2d 54,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5831.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# Troop Support military visit local elementary school for Read Across America Day

/ Published March 4, 2020

“*The more you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go*,” wrote Theodor Seuss Geisel, better known to the world as Dr. Seuss, in his famous children’s book, “Oh, the Places You’ll Go!”

Eleven active duty military members from the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support went to Gilbert Spruance Elementary School in Philadelphia to read to students in kindergarten through third grade for National Read Across America Day on March 2.

Service members read “The Book Tree” by Paul Czajak to the students.

“This is a fantastic opportunity for our active service members to make a difference in the lives of school children in our community,” said Army Brig. Gen. Gavin Lawrence, commander of DLA Troop Support. “It is so important to inspire a love of reading in young children. Read Across America is the perfect event to foster that love, and it gives the students a chance to have a positive and meaningful interaction with members of the military.”

Participation in Read Across America is a part of DLA Troop Support’s larger partnership with the School District of Philadelphia. This marks the second year DLA Troop Support participated in Read Across America at Spruance Elementary School.

“We get to do some amazing things in the military, but giving back to the community has always been one on my favorite things,” said Army Maj. Lionel Macklin, program manager for combat feeding in the Subsistence supply chain who served as a volunteer reader for this program for the last two years. “[Because] I am a big kid at heart, interacting with children is some of the most rewarding time I’ve had in my career. No matter if I’m giving backpacks and school supplies to local village children in Afghanistan or reading books and answering questions about my job at Spruance, the local elementary school, I always enjoy myself with the children.”

DLA Troop Support holds a number of other events for the school district throughout the year, including career days, holiday parties for children, and reading events on Veterans Day.

Read Across America is the nation’s largest celebration of reading, according to its website. It has grown into a year-round program that focuses on motivating children and teens to read through events, partnerships, and reading resources. It is held annually on the school day closest to March 2, which was Dr. Seuss’ birthday.
No. 09-1305.

#### Zurich American Insurance Company, et al., Petitioners v. Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 829, 131 S. Ct. 81,

178 L. Ed. 2d 26,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6444.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31218-31219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15276]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[DA 98-1052]


Pleading for Further Modification of Two Average Schedules 
Formula Proposed by NECA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Public Notice invites interested parties to comment on 
the National Exchange Carrier Association's (NECA) proposed further 
modifications of Common Line and Universal Service Fund Average 
Schedules.

DATES: Comments are to be filed on or before June 10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20054.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Williams, Accounting Safeguards 
Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-0867.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Accounting Safeguards Division of the 
Federal Communications Commission will be considering this action. 
Interested parties may file comments on the petition on or before June 
10, 1998, with the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M 
Street, NW, Room 222, Washington, DC 20554. Comments should reference 
AAD 98-20. An original and nine (9) copies of each pleading should be 
sent to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M 
Street, NW, Room 222, Washington, DC 20554. A copy of the pleading 
should also be sent to George Williams, Reporting Management and 
Analysis Branch, Accounting Safeguard Division, Common Carrier Bureau, 
and to the Commission's contractor for public service record 
duplication: International Transcription Service (ITS), 1231 20th 
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Copies of the petition may be 
obtained from the Accounting Safeguards Division's public reference 
room, Room 812, 2000 L Street, NW, Washington, DC

[[Page 31219]]

Copies are also available from ITS at (202) 857-3800.

Federal Communications Commission.
Kenneth P. Moran,
Chief, Accounting Safeguards Division, Common Carrier Bureau.
[FR Doc. 98-15276 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Howard G. Phanstiel, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and results
of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: | February 25, 2005
|----- | -----------------



By:

/s/HOWARD G. PHANSTIELHoward G. Phanstiel Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)




This certification shall not be
deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
# Employee Spotlight: Donna Rendon

/ Published March 21, 2022
Richmond, Va. , 
*Employee spotlight regularly features outstanding non-supervisory personnel from throughout the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and other DLA employees on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. Organizational directors may submit names of employees they wish to feature in this column to DLA Aviation Public Affairs. For more information, call (804) 279-3139. ___________________________________________________________________________________*

**REQUIRED**

**Name:** Donna Rendon

**Organization:**  DLA Aviation at Cherry Point, Planning and Support Section

**Years of Service:** 5 years

**What is your job title, and what do you do, specifically?**As a sustainment specialist, I perform sustainability analysis to ensure material availability for Fleet Readiness Center East. I assist with sustainability planning and analysis for shops established and future workloads to include special projects mitigating potential constraints. This includes monitoring and adjusting safety stock  and minimum safety stock levels, submitting new purchase requests, requesting expedites or partial shipment on purchase orders, expediting purchase requests, requesting manual relocation of material from other DLA sites and requesting gap buys.

**What do you like most about your job?**I love the fact that even after retiring from the military, I have the opportunity to still support the warfighter.

**What kind(s) of training and education helps your work performance in your current role?**While on active duty, I worked at the Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron. Working with Marines directly on the flightline was instrumental in preparing me for the job and provided a strong foundation in aviation supply. I have a double Bachelor of Science in Logistics Management and Human Resource Management. I also attended Sustainment Specialist 409 training as well as the DLA Aviation Academy. Within our Planning and Support Section, continuous learning/training is a part of the environment.

**If you could speak directly to the warfighters you support, what would you tell them?**I understand the sacrifices and the struggles you face every day. I thank you and I appreciate all that you do for this great nation and would like you to know that I will always provide the very best support possible. God Bless!

**What advice would you have given yourself 10 years ago?**Please start investing more.

**What are some of your passions outside of work?**Outside of work, my passions are spending quality time with my family, gardening and reading.

**Who is the most influential person in your life...past or present?**My maternal grandmother who raised me and is now 93 years old.

**What is your proudest accomplishment?**One of my proudest accomplishments is completing my double degree.

**What type of music do you most enjoy?**I would say I enjoy a little of everything rhythm and blues, jazz, reggae, rock, soul, and gospel. However, I think reggae would be my top choice because that’s what I heard mostly growing up.
2017-0248.

#### State v. Pulliam.

Scioto App. No. 16CA3759, 2017-Ohio-127.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Brian Cweren and The Cweren Law Firm, PLLC v. Eureka 

Multifamily Group, L.P., Rene Campos, Jimmy Arnold, and Chris 

Robertson

Appellate case number: 01-21-00470-CV

Trial court case number: 2021-18448

Trial court: 55th District Court of Harris County

Appellants, Brian Cweren and The Cweren Law Firm PLLC, have filed a notice of appeal 

of the trial court’s denial of their Motion to Dismiss Under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. 

On April 12, 2022, we abated this appeal while the parties participated in mediation. 

On July 11, 2022, appellants filed an unopposed motion to reinstate and proceed with the 

appeal. Appellants advised the Court that the “[p]arties were unsuccessful in their attempts to 

mediate th[e] matter and settlement discussions ha[d] ceased.” Appellants thus requested that the 

Court “reinstate and proceed with the appeal.”

We grant appellant’s motion and REINSTATE the appeal on the Court’s active docket.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Julie Countiss_________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___July 14, 2022_______
# Senior leaders talk ethics during virtual training

/ Published Sept. 18, 2020
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
The Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime’s Legal office sponsored a scenario-based virtual ethics training session Sept. 14. The session featured a panel discussion crafted to help associates empower and position themselves to make the right decision when challenged with an ethical dilemma.

The panel included the DLA Land and Maritime Commander Navy Rear Adm. Kristen Fabry and her leadership team. Joining Fabry were Land and Maritime Deputy

Director Kenneth Watson, Acquisition Executive Mark Brown, Chief of Staff Air Force Col. Samuel Payne, Jr., and Operations Director Griff Warren.  Each panel member discussed specific ethical issues faced during their careers and actions taken to navigate the situation.

An overview of the DLA workforce’s ethical responsibilities was provided to begin the training. The overview linked the importance of ethics in performing daily duties and how incorporating the ethics-based decision-making model provides guidance throughout the process.

Fabry spoke about Hatch Act dilemmas that face members of the Department of Defense workforce. Watson touched on gifts, Brown focused on applications of the Procurement Integrity Act, Payne discussed decisions made relating to travel and Warren covered potential issues that might develop through outside employment.

An attorney from Land and Maritime’s legal office moderated the training and explained how using the ethical decision-making model would have provided these leaders with assistance to help reach an appropriate ethical decision. 

Questions like can you do a particular action or activity versus should you engage in it. Is it right for the government? A point of interest for all included during the overview was the understanding that just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should.

Extended feedback and insightful questions from the audience followed each speaker’s scenario discussion.

Associates can watch the video here.
#### Fletcher v Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP

1st Dept: 140 AD3d 587

denied
#### Ping Lee, Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs, v Eagle Street Associates, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[767 NYS2d 845]

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated August 22, 2002, as, in effect, denied that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Ping Lee.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with costs, that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Ping Lee is granted, and the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Ping Lee is dismissed.

On July 18, 1995, the plaintiff Pington Associates, Inc. (hereinafter Pington), was evicted from certain premises owned by the defendant Eagle Street Associates, Inc. In August 1996, Pington, Ping Yu Hsu (hereinafter Hsu), the president and sole shareholder of Pington, and Ping Lee (hereinafter Lee), an alleged “creditor assignee” of Hsu and Pington, commenced this action against the defendants asserting, inter alia, a cause of action to recover damages for conversion. By order dated September 20, 2001, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ cross motion dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by Hsu and Pington. Thereafter, the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by Lee. The Supreme Court denied the cross motion. We reverse.

In support of their cross motion for summary judgment, the defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judg*428ment as a matter of law *(see*CPLR 3212; *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In opposition, Lee failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Lee did not offer competent evidence in admissible form to establish any of the causes of action alleged in the complaint. Further, Lee’s contention that he is a “creditor assignee” of Hsu and Pington is unsupported by the record. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by Lee. S. Miller, J.P., Townes, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.2

Note
Regarding Consent of Arthur Andersen LLP. After reasonable efforts, we have been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen's consent to the incorporation by reference of their report for our fiscal years
ended December 31, 2001 and 2000 into our previously filed registration statements under the Securities Act of 1933, and we have not filed that consent with this Annual Report on
Form 10-K in reliance upon Rule 437a under the Securities Act. Because we have not been able to obtain Arthur Andersen's consent, you may not be able to recover against
Arthur Andersen under Section 11 of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in our financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen or any omission to state a
material fact required to be stated therein.

---

QuickLinks
##### 



Exhibit 10.1

WAIVER AND RELEASE
OF
CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT

THIS WAIVER AND RELEASE made this 17th day of October, 2002 (the
Effective Date) by David R. Clark (Executive) to Pierre Foods, Inc. (the
Company).

In consideration of Ten dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration,
the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
undersigned Executive does hereby release the Company from, and waive all
rights and interest in, that certain Amended and Restated Change in Control
Agreement dated July 6, 1999 (Agreement) by and between the Company and the
Executive, and said Agreement is hereby terminated and is of no further force
or effect, effective as of the Effective Date.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Executive has executed this Waiver and
Release as of the Effective Date.

| |                                  |       
| | -------------------------------- | ------
| | /s/ David R. ClarkDavid R. Clark | (SEAL)

Acknowledge, Accept and Agree
as of the Effective Date:

Pierre Foods, Inc.

|    |  |                                                                 | 
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|By: |  | /s/ Pamela M. WittersPamela M. Witters, Chief Financial Officer | 

26
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. HARR Y M ADER

A , a .k.a . B oric ua , a .k.a . Se a l J, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50263

D.C . No. 2:08-c r-00713-DSF M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Da le S. Fisc he r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 25, 2014 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s. Harry M a d e ra a p p e a ls from

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 130-m onth se nte nc e im

pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for c onspira c y to distributeand posse ss with intent to distribute c ontrolle d substa

nc e s, in viola

tion of 

# FIL ED JUN 27 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).21 U.S.C . § 846. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), M a de ra ’ s c ounse l ha s file d a

brie f stating tha

t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

w a s c ounse l of re c ord. W e hav e provide d M a de ra the opportunity

to filea pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro sesupple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d. M a de ra wa ive d the right to a

ppe a l six spe c ifie d issue s re l ate d to his se nte nc e . Our indepe nde nt re vie w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc l ose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f a s to a ny se nte nc ing issue outsidethe sc o pe of the a ppe a l wa ive r. W e the re fore a ffirm a s to those issue s. W e dismiss there m a i nde r of the a ppe a l in light of the

va lid a ppe a l wa ive r. Se eUnite d State

s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th C ir. 2009). C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. AFFIRM E D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3 - 5 0 2 6 3 2
No. 09-1353.

#### Iron Thunderhorse, Petitioner v. Bill Pierce, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chaplaincy Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, et al.

562 U.S. 821, 131 S. Ct. 380,

178 L. Ed. 2d 15,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6581.

October 4, 2010.

The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.

Same case below, 364 Fed. Appx. 141.
#### In the Matter of Mitchell Kalwasinski, Appellant, v Central Office Review Committee, NYS DOCCS, Respondent.

[55 NYS3d 774]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Zwack, J.), entered July 12, 2016 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s grievance.

Petitioner, an inmate at Five Points Correctional Facility in Seneca County, submitted a request to the law library for written materials pertaining to the COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment instrument that is used in parole release proceedings and listed, among other things, specific legal treatises that he wished to review. His request was denied because such materials were unavailable as they were not in the possession of the *1515law library. As a result, petitioner filed a grievance. The Inmate Grievance Review Committee denied the grievance and the denial was later upheld by the Superintendent of the facility. Petitioner appealed to respondent. Upon review, respondent accepted the grievance, in part, noting, among other things, that petitioner had been provided with some documentation and that he could obtain additional materials, not available in the prison law library, through the Inmate Legal Resources Program by completing the appropriate forms. Nevertheless, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent’s determination. Following service of respondent’s answer, Supreme Court dismissed the petition and petitioner now appeals.

Initially, we note that judicial review of respondent’s determination is limited to whether it is “arbitrary or capricious, without a rational basis or affected by an error of law” *(Matter of Barnes v Bellamy,*137 AD3d 1391, 1392 [2016]; *see Matter of Nunez v Central Off. Review Comm.,*126 AD3d 1248, 1249 [2015], *lv denied*25 NY3d 911 [2015]). Here, inasmuch as the denial of petitioner’s request for specific legal treatises was based on the absence of this material from the law library, it was not arbitrary, capricious or irrational *(see Matter of Ramsey v Fischer,*93 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2012], *lv dismissed*19 NY3d 955 [2012]). Moreover, we find no merit to petitioner’s claim that the failure to provide him with the requested treatises constituted a violation of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s obligation under Correction Law § 20 to maintain a comprehensive collection of written material on the subject of parole in its prison law libraries. Significantly, the statute does not identify specific legal material that a prison law library is required to keep (see Correction Law § 20). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent that they are properly before us, and find them to be unavailing. Therefore, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.

McCarthy, J.R, Lynch, Clark, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.