alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2010-NM-029-AD

Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a"significant regulatory action"? YES () explain NO (X) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Isthe AD sigmficant? YES () explain NO (X) Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number ofsmall entities? YES () explain NO (X) Intrastate Aviation inAlaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is

### it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated inAlaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 1ranspoT1ation? YES () explain NO (X)
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-50589

Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KATHERINE HENSLER,

Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-95-CA-304

_______________________________________________________________

 April 30, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Katherine Hensler appeals the district court’s denial of her

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate her sentence. She contends that

the district court erred by determining that Hensler could not

allege her argument of insufficient evidence to support her

conviction. Hensler unsuccessfully raised the issue of

insufficient evidence to support her conviction in her direct

appeal. United States v. Hensler, No. 93-8850, slip op. at 3-5

(5th Cir. Aug. 8, 1994) (unpublished). Because this issue was 
No. 95-50589

- 2 -

-2-

raised and disposed of on direct appeal, it cannot be considered in

Hensler’s § 2255 motion. United States v. Kalish, 780 F.2d 506,

508 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1118 (1986).

Hensler also attempts to raise, for the first time on appeal,

several issues, which she alleges are constitutional in nature.

This court will not consider issues, such as these, that are not

purely legal questions and that would not result in manifest

injustice if not considered. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320,

321 (5th Cir. 1991). Hensler’s appeal is without merit and is

DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Because Hensler has failed to heed our previous warning to

avoid filing and pursuing frivolous appeals, Hensler is SANCTIONED

$100, which Hensler must pay to the clerk of this court prior to

filing any further appeals in this court.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
2017-0585.

#### State v. Lytle.

Franklin App. No. 13AP-866, 2015-Ohio-1133. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
#### In the Matter of Cornelius G., Jr., and Others, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Cornelius G., Appellant; Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services of the City of New York, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 595]

Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Clark Richardson, J.), entered on or about November 5, 2001, which denied respondent-appellant’s motion to vacate his default at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, resulting in the termination of his parental rights to the subject children upon a finding of permanent neglect and the transfer of their custody and guardianship for purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s excuse for his absence on repeatedly adjourned court dates, namely, lack of funds to travel to New York and need to stay with his ill wife in Michigan, was properly rejected for lack of substantiation; indeed, it appears that respondent had the funds and opportunity to travel to New York on other occasions *(see Matter of Jones,*128 AD2d 403 [1987]; *Matter of Danielle R.,*239 AD2d 305 [1997]). Nor did respondent substantiate his claims that, contrary to the evidence at inquest, he maintained contact with the children and cooperated with the agency’s efforts to strengthen his relationship with them *(see Matter of Derrick T.,*261 AD2d 108), or that the children’s adoption by their foster parent would not be in their best interests *(see Matter of Shaka Efion C.,*207 AD2d 740 [1994]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick

MARY MARGARET REUBEN, F/K/A TAYO MARGARET FADAHUNSI

v. Record No. 2516-96-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM INTEGRATED HEALTH SERVICES, INC. JANUARY 21, 1997 AND RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Mary Margaret Reuben, pro se , on brief). No brief for appellees.

Mary Margaret Reuben, f/k/a Tayo Margaret Fadahunsi, (claimant) appeals from a September 13, 1996 Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) decision. In its September 13, 1996 opinion, the commission held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear claimant's request for review because she did not file her request within twenty days after the deputy commissioner's August 15, 1996 opinion. Upon reviewing claimant's brief and employer's motion to dismiss, we find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. Code § 65.2-705 requires that an application for review to the full commission must be made within twenty days from the date of the award. Absent fraud or mistake, the decisions of the

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 commission or its deputy commissioners from which no party seeks timely review are binding upon the commission. K & L Trucking

Co. v. Thurber , 1 Va. App. 213, 219, 337 S.E.2d 299, 302 (1985). Claimant's request for review was not received by the commission until September 6, 1996, more than twenty days after the deputy commissioner's August 15, 1996 opinion. Therefore, the commission did not err in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the request for review. For this reason, we do not address the substantive issues raised in claimant's brief, and we affirm the commission's decision. Affirmed.
# Virtual book club brings awareness during Domestic Violence Prevention Month at DSCR

/ Published Oct. 15, 2020
RICHMOND, VA, 
Domestic Violence Awareness Month was first introduced in 1981 by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence to bring awareness to victims of domestic violence.

According to NCADV, the statistics are alarming:
      - On average, nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. This equates to more than 10 million women and men every year.
      - 20% of women in the United States have been raped.
      - 1-in-4 women and 1-in-9 men experience severe intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner contact sexual violence, and/or intimate partner stalking with impacts such as injury, fearfulness, post-traumatic stress disorder, use of victim services, contraction of sexually transmitted diseases, etc.

In recognition of this month of awareness, Melissa Futreal, family programs manager, Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond, hosted an hour long virtual and in-person book club meeting in the Frank B. Lotts Conference Center on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia Oct. 6.

“My hope in having this event is to remind those not just working for DLA Aviation, but all those working on DSCR as a whole, that there is a community to reach out to when they are experiencing something such as domestic abuse, or any other troublesome situation,” Futreal said.

Futreal said she chose to discuss the book *Crazy Love*, a memoir written by a domestic violence victim later turned survivor, Leslie Morgan Steiner, with those who attended this inaugural event.

Mae Lew was one of them. The quality assurance specialist works within DLA Aviation’s Supplier Operations Commodities Directorate’s Bearings Division.

She said this was her first time attending a book club meeting in a workplace setting and that addressing domestic violence is important, not only during the month of October, but all year around. 

“Luckily, I have not been a victim of domestic violence, but I know of someone who has been. Domestic violence not only affects the actual victims, but it negatively affects those who care about them,” Lew said.

If you are interested in taking part in future book club meetings about other topics, contact Melissa Futreal: (804) 279-4337 or by email: Melissa.Futreal@dla.mil

If you are a victim of sexual harassment or sexual assault, contact the DLA SAPR 24/7 Hotline: (800) 841-0937 or Katrina Leverette, DLA Aviation Sexual Assault Response Coordinator: Comm: (804) 279-1163, DSN: 695-1163, Cell: (804) 212-6611 or by email:  Katrina.Leverette@dla.mil

Other resources:

http://www.dla.mil/Info/SAPR.aspx

DoD SAFE HELPLINE: (877) 995-5247

Also, if you or someone you know is a victim of domestic violence or is suspected of being a victim, contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline at (800) 799−7233 or TTY (800) 787−3224.
#### In the Matter of 1437 Carroll, LLC, Appellant, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 900]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated August 6, 2014, which confirmed a determination of the Rent Administrator dated January 4, 2013, finding, inter alia, that the petitioner overcharged one of its tenants and owed that tenant the total sum of $256.96, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated September 29, 2015, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal which confirmed a determination of the Rent Administrator finding, inter alia, that the petitioner overcharged one of its tenants and owed that tenant the total sum of $256.96. In the judgment appealed from, the Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.

In reviewing a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR), the inquiry “is limited to whether the determination . . . was arbitrary or capricious, without a rational basis in the record and without a reasonable basis in the law” *(Matter of Melendez v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*304 AD2d 580, 581 [2003]; see CPLR 7803 [3]; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 230-231 [1974]). “Arbitrary action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to the facts” *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d at 231).

*1225Here, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the DHCR’s determination has a rational basis in the record and was not arbitrary or capricious *(see Matter of North Carolina Leasing Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*156 AD2d 452, 454 [1989]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Chambers, J.P., Roman, Miller and Connolly, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Wright, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 446]

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), imposed February 24, 2015, which, upon the granting of his motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside a sentence of the same court imposed August 13, 2011, upon his conviction of conspiracy in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, money laundering in the second degree, and conspiracy in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, resentenced him.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

In June 2013, the defendant pleaded guilty, inter alia, to conspiracy in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree in full satisfaction of the indictment. He was sentenced in accordance with a plea agreement, as a predicate felony offender, to concurrent sentences, the greatest of which was a determinate term of 13V2 years. Subsequently, the defendant successfully moved pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence as illegal on the ground that he should not have been sentenced as a predicate felony offender because his federal conviction for conspiracy to *1033commit a drug crime could not serve as a predicate felony for sentencing purposes in New York *(see People v Ramos,*19 NY3d 417, 418 [2012]). At resentencing, the County Court sentenced the defendant as a first felony offender, but imposed consecutive sentences for the conviction of conspiracy in the second degree and the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree so as to arrive at a similar aggregate term as it had previously imposed. The defendant appeals from the resentence.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court did not lack the authority to impose the corrected sentence, which fell within the range initially agreed upon *(see People v DeValle,*94 NY2d 870, 871-872 [2000]; *People v Williams,*87 NY2d 1014, 1015 [1996]). Furthermore, the court was authorized to impose consecutive sentences for the defendant’s conviction of conspiracy in the second degree and his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree because those crimes, as admitted to at the plea allocution, involved separate and distinct acts *(see*Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; *People v Laureano,*87 NY2d 640, 643-644 [1996]; *People v Ortiz,*256 AD2d 424 [1998]; *People v Cordoba,*208 AD2d 420 [1994]; *People v Martinez,*198 AD2d 197 [1993]; *cf. People v Rifino,*143 AD3d 741 [2016]).

The resentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
# Perseverance, resiliency key themes of DLA Troop Support Women’s Equality Day event

/ Published Aug. 17, 2021
PHILADELPHIA, 
Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support employees attended a virtual visit with “Dora Lewis,” Philadelphia suffragist for the National Woman’s Party during a Women’s Equality Day event August 11.

Lewis, portrayed by Carol Spacht, from the American Historical Theatre, shared the journey of suffragist fighting for women’s right to vote.

The National Woman’s Party, led by Alice Paul, demanded the ratification of the U.S. Constitution’s 19th Amendment versus states individually granting women the right to vote.

"Voting it not a privilege: it is the right of every citizen,” Spacht said as Lewis. “Alice Paul claims the suffrage movement is a sort of mosaic. Each of us puts in one little stone and then you get a great mosaic at the end. And that’s who I am: I am one little stone in the crooked path of suffrage.”

Spacht described Lewis as a “salient sentinel” for suffrage, serving four prison sentences, including being arrested for picketing at the White House along with 31 other suffragists November 14, 1917.

“We did not expect the brutal treatment we would receive during that infamous Night of Terror,” Spacht said.

Lewis and the other suffragists were sent to Occoquan Work House in Virginia, where they were manhandled, threatened and denied the right to be treated as political prisoners, Spacht said. Lewis and others were imprisoned for two weeks and forcibly fed after going on a hunger strike.

Spacht described this event as a defining moment in the women’s suffragist movement, leading up to Congress ultimately ratifying the 19th Amendment August 26, 1920.

Following Spacht’s presentation, DLA Troop Support Commander Army Brig. Gen. Eric Shirley and audience members asked questions, including what message Lewis would share with women today on succeeding in the workforce?

“I would boil it down to two words: perseverance and resiliency,” Spacht said. “Perseverance is the push that is needed over time, but resiliency is the bending. And if you’re not able to bend and get back up again, then you’re not going to be able to get back up again and eventually win the battle [for women’s rights].”

Shirley expressed his thoughts on the continued efforts as well.

“I am grateful to be a part of the Department of Defense; an organization that is dedicated to providing equal employment opportunities for women,” Shirley said.

The event was hosted by the DLA Troop Support Equal Employment Opportunity Office and Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support EEO Advisory Committees.
# L_2010298EN.01008701.xml

| 16.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 298/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 298/87

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1015/2010 of 10 November 2010 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for household washing machines

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 293 of 11 November 2010
  )

On page 23, Article 8(2)(b):

for:

| ‘(b) | the generic ecodesign requirements set out in point 1(2) of Annex I shall apply from 1 June 2011;’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(b)

the generic ecodesign requirements set out in point 1(2) of Annex I shall apply from 1 June 2011;’,

read:

| ‘(b) | the generic ecodesign requirements set out in point 1(2) of Annex I shall apply from 1 June 2012;’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(b)

the generic ecodesign requirements set out in point 1(2) of Annex I shall apply from 1 June 2012;’.

---
#### Lynette Saxon, Respondent, v Leonila Ramirez et al., Defendants, and Carine Darnell et al., Appellants.

[62 NYS3d 805]—

*421Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered January 11, 2017, which denied the motion of defendants Carine Darnell and Kevin T. Darnell for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action involving a four-car motor vehicle accident, the Darnell defendants failed to demonstrate their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The inconsistencies between the statements made to the police after the accident and the affidavit submitted by Kevin Darnell in support of the motion show that there are issues of fact as to the sequence of the collisions *(see Passos v MTA Bus Co.,*129 AD3d 481, 482-483 [1st Dept 2015]; *Espinal v Volunteers of Am.-Greater N.Y., Inc.,*121 AD3d 558, 559 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Oing and Singh, JJ.
# 386th ELRS expedites rations time from pallet to warfighter 

/ Published March 17, 2020
ALI AL SALEM AIR BASE, Kuwait , 
The sound of machine engines running a 24-hour cargo operation becomes white noise for the Airmen of the 386th Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron.Each morning, Tech. Sgt. Juan Garcia, 386th ELRS cargo processing noncommissioned officer in charge, walks out of his room and hears the sound of those engines and knows one thing:If the noise ever were to stop, he would wonder what's wrong, and why the warfighters aren't getting what they need for their missions.Airmen assigned to the 386th ELRS cargo processing team ensure that 15 to 30 thousand pounds of water, food, and MREs are delivered across the area of responsibility to military members in need."Ali Al Salem is a hub for the AOR," said Garcia. "Being here with the coalition forces and moving all different kinds of cargo makes it unique. We are working non-stop with different entities and different moving parts to get the rations where they're needed."The loading process is only accomplished with joint services working hand-in-hand and requires around the clock operations."Cargo Airmen work a 12hr shift, with rations coming in daily," said Garcia. "We're the lifeline for some units in the AOR, and some can't survive without us. Our cargo yard has over 200 pallets ready to ship and at any given time."Garcia also mentioned that once U.S. Army Soldiers build the pallets of rations, they are jointly inspected by ELRS technicians to certify their airworthiness before moving on to one of the 55 bases where they're needed."Usually, rations are the highest priority to move since you don't want them sitting outside," said Garcia. “We get them out as soon as possible. We can ‘load plan’ it, and within six hours, it can be on its way."The AASAB mission for the ELRS can be challenging for not only a seasoned Technical Sergeant but also for the newest of Airmen on their first deployment."I came from Elmendorf, and it's a lot faster paced here," said Airman 1st Class Michael Paradiso, 386thELRS cargo specialist. "Back at home station, you don't necessarily see the whole mission, but when you're here, you see and experience it all. I get to ensure everything goes where it needs to be."It is in this spirit of ensuring the mission is accomplished between every ELRS Airmen, day and night, ensuring the warfighter will receive their needs for the mission.*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing website.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 1, 2014

Order 

Clerk

July 1, 2014

146763(83)

HEATHER LYNN HANNAY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 146763

v COA: 307616

Court of Claims: 09-000116-MZ

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Municipal League to file 

an amicus curiae brief that addresses a common issue in this case and in No. 147335, 

Hunter v Sisco, is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on June 26, 2014, is accepted 

for filing.
Exhibit 21.1

KMG Chemicals, Inc.

Subsidiaries (as of July 31, 2012)



|                               |  |             
|------------------------------ |  | ------------
|Name                           |  | Jurisdiction
|KMG Electronic Chemicals, Inc. |  | Delaware    
|KMG-Bernuth, Inc.              |  | Delaware    
|KMG de Mexico, SA de CV        |  | Mexico      
|KMG Italia, S.r.l.             |  | Italy       

Subsidiaries that in the aggregate do not constitute a significant subsidiary have been excluded.