alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 09-10098.

#### Johnnie Gathers, Petitioner v. Willie Eagleton, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 843, 131 S. Ct. 76,

178 L. Ed. 2d 51,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5837.

October 4, 2010.

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

*52Same case below, 334 Fed. Appx. 542.
#### Fairway Consumer Discount Co. v. Laskowski

11/16/2015

530 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 457
# DLA Aviation employees remember 9/11: Barry Haynes

/ Published Sept. 10, 2021
Richmond, Va., 
*In commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Public Affairs Office is running a week-long series Sept 6-11 sharing the stories of DLA Aviation employees who remember where they were and what they were doing that fateful day.*

**Name:**Barry Haynes

**Organization:**DLA Aviation at San Diego

**What is your job title, and what do you do, specifically?**I’m the chief of the Planning and Support Division. We are responsible for supporting Navy depot aircraft and components and play an instrumental role in improving collaboration and overall production support to Fleet Readiness Center Southwest.

**Please tell where you were and what you were doing on Sept. 11, 2001.**I was working as a civilian at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California. That morning, I was getting ready to start my day when I turned on the TV and saw things playing out in New York, Washington D.C., and over the sky of Pennsylvania. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing and hearing. I got dressed quickly and headed to the base. It was very somber in the office and everyone was on edge.

**What can we do to ensure future generations never forget that fateful day?**Communication is the key, honor all the victims of that fateful day, as well as the first responders.
No. 09-11373.

#### Frederick Ricardo Germany, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 876, 131 S. Ct. 186,

178 L. Ed. 2d 112,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6730.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.

Same case below, 984 A.2d 1217.
No. 10-217.

#### Stephen A. Marino, Petitioner v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

562 U.S. 897, 131 S. Ct. 355,

178 L. Ed. 2d 149,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6187.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 373 Fed. Appx. 662.
#### Michael Carroll, Respondent, v Ioannis Kontarinis et al., Appellants.

[54 NYS3d 448]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Dollard, J.), dated May 13, 2016, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when the defendants’ dog bit him. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendants appeal.

“To recover upon a theory of strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog . . . knew or should have known of such propensities” *(Palumbo v Nikirk,*59 AD3d 691, 691 [2009]; *see Petrone v Fernandez,*12 NY3d 546, 550 [2009]; *Collier v Zambito,*1 NY3d 444, 446 [2004]; *Gammon v Curley,*147 AD3d 727 [2017]). “Vicious propensities include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation” *(Bard v Jahnke,*6 NY3d 592, 596-597 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “Evidence tending to prove that a dog has vicious propensities includes a prior attack, the dog’s tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth, the manner in which the dog was restrained, and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” *(Hodgson-Romain v Hunter,*72 AD3d 741, 741 [2010]; *see Bard v Jahnke,*6 NY3d at 597; *Velez v Andrejka,*126 AD3d 685, 686 [2015]).

Here, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they were not aware, nor should they have been aware, that their dog had ever bitten anyone or exhibited any aggressive behavior *(see Collier v Zambito,*1 NY3d at 447; *Jackson v Georgalos,*133 AD3d 719, 720 [2015]; *Hodgson-Romain v Hunter,*72 AD3d at 741). Specifically, the defendants submitted the deposition testimony of the defendant Nicholas *961Kontarinis, who testified that, prior to the subject incident, the dog had never bitten anyone or bared its teeth, and there were no complaints about the dog’s behavior. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Roche v Bryant,*81 AD3d 707, 708 [2011]; *Schwartz v Nevatel Communications Corp.,*8 AD3d 469, 469 [2004]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Chambers, J.P., Austin, Roman and Barros, JJ., concur.
#### Jean F. Donsimoni, Respondent, v Serigne M. Fall, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 475]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), entered on or about January 19, 2017, which granted plaintiff’s motion to reargue its prior order, entered on or about August 3, 2016, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, upon reargument, denied the motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The fact that plaintiff’s lone affidavit of merit in opposition to defendant’s summary judgment was acknowledged by a vice-consul in the U.S. Embassy in Paris, France, yet was submitted without a requisite certificate of conformity *(see*CPLR 2309 [c]; Real Property Law § 301 *et seq.),*constituted an irregularity that could be corrected nunc pro tunc, if necessary *(see DaSilva v KS Realty, L.P.,*138 AD3d 619 [1st Dept 2016]; *Gyamfi v Citywide Mobile Response Corp.,*146 AD3d 612 [1st Dept 2017]), and the affidavit otherwise raised both factual and credibility issues as to the cause of the accident, warranting denial of summary judgment *(see e.g. Redlich v Stone,*152 AD3d 432 [1st Dept 2017]).

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

Concur — Richter, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00177-CV

In the Matter of the Marriage of Gloria Ordaz and Dorance Cuba and in the Interest of 

D.O., D.O., M.O., Children

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-0034-21-7

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED 

and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the appeal 

are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 28, 2024
DLA Distribution San Diego hosts Distribution’s Commanding General
 
  By Navy Lt. Kimayah Fulcher, Military Liaison Officer, DLA Distribution San Diego
  Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Diego, California, hosted Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Keith D. Reventlow, commanding general, DLA Distribution for a tour of the DLA Distribution San Diego, facilities. The purpose of the visit was to provide Reventlow a familiarization brief, facilities tour and discussion of daily operations handled by DDDC that support our Navy/Marine warfighters. “It’s good to be here and see everything up close,” said Reventlow. “Thank you for what you do, it’s greatly appreciated. We’re a diverse team, whether it’s the service provider or government entity. We may all wear different t-shirts but at the end of the day, it’s all about the mission. We’re all united in that. And I can see that you all pull together and work cohesively day in and day out to support the mission at hand – the warfighters!” During the visit, DDDC’s commander, Navy Capt. Kerri Yarbrough, touched on the comparison and support the center provides with that of civilian corporations. “Similar to a Fortune 500 firm, their bottom line is profit and our profit equates to readiness. Everything we do is all about supporting our warfighters and I applaud the DDDC team for their endless dedication, commitment, energy and support as we execute contract transition,” said Yarbrough.
No. 09-11176.

#### Derrick McLean, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 865, 131 S. Ct. 153,

178 L. Ed. 2d 92,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6638.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Same case below, 29 So. 3d 1045.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3



               [HEADLANDS MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., LETTERHEAD]



                                 March 26, 1998


First National Bank of Chicago
One North State Street, 9th Floor
Chicago, IL  60602-0126
Attn: Corporate Trust Administration Department

Capital Markets Assurance Corporation Credit Enhancement
885 Third Avenue
New York, NY  10022-4834
Attn: Managing Director

            RE:     Headlands HELOC Notes, Series 1997-1; Annual Compliance
                    -------------------------------------------------------
                    Certificate
                    -----------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      Pursuant to Section 3.9 of the Indenture and otherwise in compliance with
the requirements of the Trust Indenture Act, Section 314(a)(4), with respect to
Headlands HELOC Notes, Series 1997-1, the undersigned officer of Headlands
Mortgage Securities, Inc., in its capacity as Manager of Headlands Home Equity
Loan Trust (the "Issuer") certifies that:

      1. a review of the activities of the Issuer and performance under the
         Indenture during the year ended December 31, 1997, has been made under
         the undersigned's supervision; and

      2. To the best of the undersigned's knowledge following reasonable
         inquiry, the Issuer is in compliance with all conditions and covenants
         under which it is obligated pursuant to the Indenture, and there has
         been no default in the compliance of any such condition or covenant.


                    Very truly yours

                    HEADLANDS HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST

                    By: HEADLANDS MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.
                        as Manager


                    By:  /s/ Gilbert J. MacQuarrie
                       -----------------------------------------------------
                       Gilbert J. MacQuarrie
                       Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary and Director
GJM:pt

                                       8
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John C. Delmarle, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[769 NYS2d 431]

Appeal from an order of Monroe County Court (Connell, J), entered April 3, 2002, which designated defendant a level three offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

*1447Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order designating him a level three offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.).*The point total on the risk assessment instrument (RAI) prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) presumptively classified defendant as a level one offender, but the Board recommended an upward departure to level three based upon factors not adequately taken into account by the RAI *(see Matter of O’Brien v State of New York Div. of Probation & Correctional Servs.,*263 AD2d 804, 805-806 [1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 758 [1999]). County Court, after considering the recommendation of the Board and materials submitted by both parties *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]), agreed with the Board that departure from the presumptive risk level classification of the RAI was warranted, and concluded that defendant was properly designated a level three offender because “the risk of repeat offense is high and there exists a threat to the public safety” (§ 168-Z [6] [c]; *see O’Brien,*263 AD2d at 806; *People v Marinconz,*178 Misc 2d 30, 33-34 [1998]; *People v Salaam,*174 Misc 2d 726, 736 [1997]). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the court’s determination of defendant’s risk level is based on clear and convincing evidence *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]; *People v Brown,*302 AD2d 919, 920 [2003]; *People v Scott,*288 AD2d 763, 765 [2001]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
2017-0257.

#### State v. Catney.

Cuyahoga App. No. 104141, 2017-Ohio-90.
# Cannon Air Force Base receives energy conservation upgrades

/ Published June 21, 2021
CANNON AIR FORCE BASE, New Mexico, 
Cannon Air Force Base will have access to more resilient, efficient, and reliable energy thanks to a Defense Logistics Agency Energy $19 million energy savings performance contract.

The contract was awarded June 3 and includes five energy conservation upgrades to 119 buildings and incorporates 1.9 megawatts of solar generation capacity, smart controls, and other conservation technologies. The New Mexico Air Force Base is expected to save approximately $1.1 million in the first year alone and $33 million over the course of the performance period.

“Challenges faced during the ESPC process included coordinating the location of the proposed solar array and making sure the appropriate environmental assessments were completed and approved prior to award,” said DLA Energy Installation Energy Contracting Officer Cindy Ralph.

The project is expected to reduce annual energy consumption and carbon emissions by 77,883 million British thermal units and 10,700 metric tons. The collaborative effort between the Air Force Civil Engineer Center and Cannon AFB supports the Air Force’s goal to improve resilience, optimize demand and assure a vital energy supply for every mission.

Located in the high plains of eastern New Mexico, near the Texas Panhandle, the base’s locations offered challenges and opportunities.

“We look forward to this ESPC contract,” said Air Force Col. Rob Masaitis, 27th Special Operations Wing commander and installation commander in an Air Force news release. “These infrastructure improvements will enhance the efficiency of our training and mission execution as well as reduce Cannon Air Force Base’s energy footprint.”

A unique aspect of this energy savings performance contract is the lighting management system.

“The new outdoor lighting management system will improve mission capability by providing rapid shutdown of the North and South ramp lighting during nighttime training operations,” Ralph said.

DLA Energy Installation Energy will kick off the construction phase of the effort in July, with expected completion in February 2023. 

Installation Energy is one of the DoD’s contracting agents for meeting established energy efficiency and renewable energy goals. DLA Energy assists customers in determining which contractual and financing vehicles are applicable to their renewable energy or energy conservation effort. For more information on the ESPC and/or renewable energy programs, please contact dlaenergy.rteam@dla.mil.
# 1 

# S UMMARY



# I NFORMATION

A. Applicant Information:

( Check all that apply)

X Not a

Consortium Interstate

Consortium Intrastate

Consortium

Community now receives EAS subsidy

X Community (or Consortium member) previously

received a Small Community Grant

If previous recipient, date of grant: June 26, 2002

E xpiration date of grant: March 12, 2005

B. Public/Private Partnerships:

(List organization names)

Public Private

1. Santa Maria Public

Airport District 1. Santa Maria Valley Chamber

of Commerce & Visitor &

Convention Bureau

2

. Santa Maria Economic

Development Commission

C

. Project Proposal:

(C

heck all that apply)

X Marketing X Start

- up Cost Offset

Travel Bank X Secure Additional

Service

Surface Transportation X New Route

Launch New Carrier Subsidy

Study X Revenue Guarantee

Upgrade Aircraft First Service

Service Restoration Other (specify): Regional Service

D. Existing Landing Aids at Local Airport:

X Full ILS X Published Instrument Approach

X Localizer X Outer/Middle Marker

X Other (specify): VOR and GPS Approach es E. Project Cost:

Line Description Sub

Total Total

Amount

1 Federal amount requested $490,000

2 State cash financial

contribution $0

Local cash financial

contribution

3a Airport cash funds $45,000

3b Non

- airport cash funds $130,000

3 Total local cash funds

(3a+3b) $ 175 ,000

4 TOTAL CASH FUNDING

(1+2+3) $ 665 ,000

In

- Kind contribution

5a Airport In

- Kind

contributio n** $55,000

5b Other In

- Kind

contribution ** $10,000

5 TOTAL IN

- KIND

CONTRIBUTION (5a+5b) $ 6 5,000

6 TOTAL PROJECT COST (4+ 5 ) $ 730 ,000

F. In

- Kind Contributions :

For funds in lines 5a (Airport In

- Kind contribution) and 5b (Other In

- Kind

contribution), please describe the source(s) of fund(s) for each.

5a Airport In

- Kind contribution: Fee waivers

5b Other In

- Kind contribution: Marketing

G. Is this application subject to review by State

under Executive Order 12372 process?

a. This application was made available to the State

under the Executive Order 12372. Process for

review on (date) _____________.

b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372, b ut has not

been selected by the State for review.

c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372.

H. Is the Applicant delinquent on any Federal

debt? (if “yes”, provide explanation)

No

Yes (explain ) X

X
2017-1090.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore.

On certified order. Michael Garth Moore, Attorney Registration No. 0025047, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, publicly reprimanded.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14070]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-301-003]


Overthrust Pipeline Company; Notice of Refund Report

May 21, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 18, 1998, Overthrust Pipeline Company 
(Overthrust) tendered for filing and acceptance of a refund report to 
comply with the Commission's April 1, 1998, Order Accepting Contested 
Settlement, As Modified, in Docket No. RP97-301 and 18 CFR 154.501 of 
the Commission's regulations.
    Overthrust states that on April 17, 1998, it made refunds of 
$2,108,280.87 to its firm transportation customers in accordance with 
paragraph III B (1) of the settlement dated October 1, 1997, and in 
compliance with the Commission's April 1, 1998 order accepting the 
October 1, 1997 settlement.
    Overthrust further states that a copy of this filing has been 
served upon its effected firm customers and the Public Service 
Commission of Wyoming.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before May 28, 1998. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-14070 Filed 5-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Mines Management, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| \s\  Glenn M. Dobbs                    |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Glenn  M. Dobbs                        |   |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| May 15,  2008                     |   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Mines Management, Inc. and will be retained by MinesManagement, Inc and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

                          18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Monarch Cement Company
(the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (a)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934; and

     (b)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
          in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of the Company.


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

Dated:  November 13, 2003.


                                           /s/ Debra P. Roe
                                          Debra P. Roe, CPA
                                          Chief Financial Officer and
                                          Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
No. 09-11184.

#### Vahkob Valiyevich Abdullayev, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 866, 131 S. Ct. 154,

178 L. Ed. 2d 92,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6513.

October 4, 2010.

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

*93Same case below, 363 Fed. Appx. 232.
No. 10-5867.

#### Elizabeth A. Chan, Petitioner v. Department of Justice.

562 U.S. 824, 131 S. Ct. 387,

178 L. Ed. 2d 21,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6632.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 25, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 143.
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:

Is the AD sigmficant?

YES () explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities?

YES () explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of

1ranspoT1ation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)