alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1875 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 5 ) ll-E-2 3 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/2008 11:12:44

AM Sheet 5of 86P. 2

. . — —7T" £;

> V'" 1 i ; in' 1 

# JAC ACorp . oed «

» f - 

# A-90-1 9 ll-E-2 3 55 0 Pinetow n Rd . -";•'- " ••Ft . Washington , P A 1903 4

—- " 215/643-546 6 Fax : 215/643-277 2 

# Telephon e Log Date : Marc h 15 . 199 1 Time : Projec t No. : 00721 9 Projec t Name : HO

N Perso n Contacted/Title : nnn g iimipy , Rpprp^pntativ p Phon e Number : (201 ) 776-788 8 Fax : Compan y Representing : Mannsvill e Chemica l Product s Corporatio n JACARepresentative : Andr e K . Jenkin s Discussion : I wante d t o obtai n averag e realize d pric e informatio n fo rpolvcarbon ate-qrad e Bisphenol-A . I wa s tol d byMr . Lumleytha t most polycarbonate-grad e BP A i s consume

d captively . Thus , i t i s difficul t t o determin e an averag e realize d price .
No. 10-5040.

#### Kimberly Albright-Lazzari, et vir, Petitioners v. Connecticut.

562 U.S. 805, 131 S. Ct. 232,

178 L. Ed. 2d 6,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7697.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Connecticut dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).
#### In the Matter of Brandon L.B. Heart Share Human Services of New York, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, Appellant; Lori S.P., Respondent, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Tre D.B. Heart Share Human Services of New York, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, Appellant; Lori S.P., Respondent, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Nathaniel L.B. Heart Share Human Services of New York, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, Appellant; Lori S.P., Respondent, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.)

[54 NYS3d 134]

Appeal by the petitioner from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ann E. O’Shea, J.), dated June 30, 2016. The order, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed those branches of related petitions which were to terminate the mother’s parental rights to the subject children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner filed three related petitions, inter alia, to terminate the mother’s parental rights to the subject children on the ground of permanent neglect. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court dismissed those branches of the petitions which were to terminate the mother’s parental rights. The petitioner appeals.

“In a proceeding to terminate parental rights based on permanent neglect, the petitioning agency must, as a threshold matter, prove by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship before the court may consider whether the parent has fulfilled his or her duties to maintain contact with and plan for the future of the child” *(Matter of Morgan A.H.-P. [Ta-Mirra J.H.],*134 AD3d 712, 714 [2015]). Here, the Family Court determined, after a fact-finding hearing, that the petitioner did not make an initial showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the mother’s relationship with the children, and we find no basis to disturb the court’s determination *(see id.*at 714; *Matter of Maria Ann P.,*296 AD2d 574 [2002]).

Moreover, the record supports the Family Court’s determination that, even if the petitioner had met its initial burden of establishing that it made the requisite diligent efforts, the petitioner failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that during the relevant period of time, the mother failed *985substantially and continuously to maintain contact with the children or plan for their future, although physically and financially able to do so *(see Matter of Winstoniya D. [Tammi G.],*123 AD3d 705 [2014]; *Matter of Austin C. [Alicia Y],*77 AD3d 938, 939 [2010]; *Matter of Olivia L.,*41 AD3d 1226 [2007]; *Matter of Donovan R.,*10 AD3d 398 [2004]).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed those branches of the petitions which were to terminate the mother’s parental rights.

Balkin, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.
No. 09-11381.

#### Jamal Reyes, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 877, 131 S. Ct. 189,

178 L. Ed. 2d 113,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6991.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 350 Fed. Appx. 790.
(logo)NORWEST BANK                                 Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
                                                   11000 Broken Land Parkway
                                                   Columbia, Maryland 21044-3562
                                                   410/884-2000
April 30, 1997



First Union National Bank of North Carolina
230 S. Tryon Street, 9th Floor
Charlotte, NC 28288-1179
Atten: Pablo Delacanal

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Norwest Asset Securities  Corporation,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1996-8


Dear Mr. Delacanal:

Per Section 3.05 of the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,  dated as of November
26,  1996,  the  undersigned  Officer of Norwest  Bank  Minnesota,  N.A.  hereby
certifies the following for the 1996 calendar year or portion thereof:


(a)  That such Officer has reviewed the activities of the Master Servicer during
     the preceding  calendar year or portion thereof and its  performance  under
     such Agreement;


(b)  That to the best of such  Officer's  knowledge,  based on such review,  the
     Master  Servicer has performed  and fulfilled its duties,  responsibilities
     and  obligations  under  each  such  Agreement  in  all  material  respects
     throughout such year, or, if there has been a default in the fulfillment of
     any such obligation, specifying each such default known to such officer and
     the nature and status thereof;

(c)  That Norwest Bank  Minnesota,  N.A.  has  received  from each  Servicer any
     financial statements,  officer's  certificats,  accountant's  statements or
     other  information  required to be provided to the Master Servicer pursuant
     to the related Agreement;  with the exception of any information  contained
     in Exhibit A, if applicable and

(d)  That to the best of such Officer's  knowledge,  based on such  examination,
     each Servicer has performed and fulfilled its duties,  responsibilities and
     obligations under its related Agreement in all material respects throughout
     such  year,  or,  if  there  has  been  a  default  in the  performance  or
     fulfillment of any such duties, responsibilities or obligations, specifying
     each such default known to such officer and the nature and status  thereof,
     with  the  exception  of  the  information   contained  in  Exhibit  A,  if
     applicable.

Certified By:                                             Certified By:



/s/Christine A. Tincher                               /s/William P. Walther, Jr.
Christine A. Tincher                                  William P. Walther, Jr.
Vice President                                        Assistant Secretary

April 30, 1997                                        April 30, 1997
Date                                                  Date



430\FIRSTUN\MERGE1-B\21-10\NASCOR96-8.DOC
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ashley Ventura, Appellant.

[60 NYS3d 824]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered December 15, 2014, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur— Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT, CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH (B).
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,803
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,996
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,045
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,784
<PP&E>                                          38,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,038
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  85,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,802
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         14
<COMMON>                                         5,637
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,244
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    85,014
<SALES>                                         81,066
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,066
<CGS>                                           68,370
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   547
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 891
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    212
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (73)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                285
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       285
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
p.1 

OAR Box 1252 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

30) IV-F-12 

Docket Number: 

A-90-22 

Printed 5/21/2008 11:46:01 AM Sheet 30 of 184 
P.2 

A-90-22 

IV-F-12 

Statement of D. M. Driesen, Natural Resources Defense 

Council, before the Environmental Protection Agency on 

the Proposed Hazardous Organic NESHAP for the SOCMI 

Industry public hearing held in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 

March 18, 1993. This item is identical to Docket 

No. A-90-19, Item NO. IV-F-12. 

I

7 ft % n
No. 10M26.

#### Orlan Hernan Valle, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 820, 131 S. Ct. 376,

178 L. Ed. 2d 13,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6244.

October 4, 2010.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 332.
No. 12-746.

#### D. R. Horton, Inc., et al. *v.*Lyndoe et al.

Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6788

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

ANTHONY WILLIAMS, a/k/a Bones, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00152-CMH-1) 

Submitted: February 12, 2009 Decided: March 4, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Anthony Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Leo Fahey, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Anthony Williams appeals a district court order 

granting his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c) (2006). The district court applied Amendment 706 of 

the Sentencing Guidelines to Williams’ total offense level and 

reduced his sentence. We affirm. 

We find the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in granting Williams’ motion for a sentence 

reduction. United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 

2004) (stating standard of review). Insofar as Williams 

suggests the court could have considered an even lower sentence 

below the Guidelines sentencing range, this claim is foreclosed 

by United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir. 2009) 

(“[A] district judge is not authorized to reduce a defendant’s 

sentence below the amended guideline range.”). We further find 

no error by the district court denying Williams’ motion for 

appointment of counsel. 

Accordingly, we affirm the order granting Williams a 

sentence reduction. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
No. 09-10713.

#### Frankie Washington, Petitioner v. Mary Lattimore, Warden.

562 U.S. 850, 131 S. Ct. 100,

178 L. Ed. 2d 63,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5857.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
#### Town of N. Hempstead v County of Nassau

2d Dept: 149 AD3d 1134

denied
# Mark Brown among DLA SES’ recognized for contributions to military

/ Published July 1, 2020
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
During a June 25 virtual event broadcast from Defense Logistics Agency Headquarters, DLA Land and Maritime Acquisition Executive, Mark Brown was one of several field Senior Executives awarded the DLA Exceptional Civilian Service Award honoring their contributions to supporting our nation’s military services.

Brown directs various Land and Maritime acquisition initiatives that have helped produce improvements in material availability and reductions in backorders, ultimately resulting in enhanced Warfighter support.  Land and Maritime’s Acquisition Executive since February 2018, Brown both encourages and challenges the acquisition workforce to seek innovative approaches to improving procurement capabilities.

“It’s always been my belief that our Federal acquisition guidance provides us with sufficient flexibilities to find solutions to most complex acquisition issues, and allows us to expeditiously contract for what our military needs to accomplish their missions,” Brown said.

Brown explained, “This award, while presented to me, is a direct reflection of the world class acquisition workforce that we’re fortunate to have here at Land and Maritime, and we’ll continue our efforts to provide outstanding support to our Warfighters.”
# Aviation Hall of Fame nominations accepted through August 31

/ Published July 1, 2020
Richmond, Va., 
Nominations for the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s annual Hall of Famefor 2020 are open through Aug. 31. The Aviation Hall of Fame honors former employees who have made significant and enduring contributions to DLA Aviation or Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia.

To be eligible, nominees must have been separated from DLA or the DLA Aviation community for at least one year from the date of their reassignment, retirement, discharge or death.

The DLA Aviation community is comprised of both military and civilian government employees from all DLA Aviation locations, or any DLA activity located on the Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. 

Former employees are defined as government civilians and military (active duty and reserve components). Nominees should not be in a position to return to employment with DLA. 

Nominees must meet at least one of the following criteria:

Accomplished an enduring achievement that has life-long specific benefits to the center and Defense Logistics Agency. 

Made a specific or continuous accomplishment positively affecting a large segment of DLA Aviation’s employees, customers and/or vendors.

Made a long-term contribution that has a lasting and positive impact on DLA Aviation’s mission and/or business practices.

Last year’s Hall of Fame inductee was Janet Price.

More details on the nomination criteria can be found in the Aviation Hall of Fame guidelines. 

Any current or former employee can complete their nomination online or email their completed nomination to the DLA Aviation Awards Coordinator Yolanda Adams-Hall at yolanda.adams-hall@dla.mil. For more information, call Adams-Hall at (804) 279-3664.
#### Anthony J. Palmiotto et al., Respondents, v Wooster Parking Corp., Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 292]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered on or about March 15, 2016, and said ap*622peal having been withdrawn before argument by counsel for the respective parties; and upon the stipulation of the parties hereto dated March 7, 2017, it is unanimously ordered that said appeal be and the same is hereby withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid stipulation.

Concur— Richter, J.R, Mazzarelli, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
2017-1603.

#### State v. Murton.

Geauga App. No. 2016-G-0098, 2017-Ohio-7949. Sua sponte, appellee’s memorandum in response to jurisdiction stricken as untimely pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(B).
No. 09-10792.

#### Contrell Carter, aka Cottrell Carter, Petitioner v. Ronald King, Superintendent, South Mississippi Correctional Institution.

562 U.S. 852, 131 S. Ct. 110,

178 L. Ed. 2d 67,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6252.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
12/16/201 0 14:4 7 B16329410 6 SA D PAG E 02/0 3 

# o tlSDepartmeni r ofTionsportano n AflmMnnsfflo n 

### DEf^ARTMEN T O F ^•AMSPORTATIO N ::E i OPERATION S i^ i ' n "] A ^ 0 0 80 0 IndepenMncf t Ave , 5 ^Al . W8Sh»igion . D C 2059 1

DE C 1 6 2C1 0 Mr , Ronal d Gaynie

r 2593EschAvaiu e An n Arbor , M I 48104-625 5 Dea r Mr . Gayniex : Thi s lette r i s i n respons e t o you

r Septembe r 8,2009 , letter

filed wit h th e U.S . Departmen

t o f Transportation' s RegulatiQns.gov Syste m(Docke t No , FAA-2009-0836) . In tha t letter , yo u petitione dih e Federa

l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA) to amen d Par t 1 o f Titl e 14 , Code of Federa l Regulation s (1 4 CFR) . Yoia r petitio n fo

r nalemaking propose s t o amen d 1 4 CF RPar t 1 , § 1. 1 t o revis e th e definitio n o f ti^ t spor t aircraf t (LSA) . The curren

t rul e establishe s th e maximu mtakeof f weigh t fo r LS A o f no t more tha n 132 0 pound s (60 0 kilograms ) fo

r aircraf t no t intended fo

r operatio n on wate r

an d 143 0 pomid s (65 0 kilograms ) fo

r a n aircraf t intende d fo

r operation on water . I n you r petitio n yo

u state tha t the conversio n use d i n the rul e fo r th e LS A weight s fo

r pound s (lbs ) t o kilogram s (kg ) i s no t correct an d result s fromusin g (he approximat e conversio n valu e o f

2. 2 lb s per

kg . In you

r example , you state that

th e closes t

conversion from60 0 k g t

o lbs , usin g th e conversio n facto r establishe db y th e National Institute o f Standard s an

d Technolog y (0.45359237) , rounde d t o th e neares t poun d i s 132 3 lb s no t

132 0 lbs . Also , as you hav e identifie d i n your petition , usin g thi s sam

e conversio n facto

r fo r 65 0 k g wil l resul t

i n 143 3 Ib S no t 143 0 lbs . Whil e you r suggestio n ma

y hav e merit , it

doe s no t addres s a n immediate safet

y concer n and , dierefore , becaus e o f

other prioritie s an d resourc e constraints , w e are unabl e t o initiate an y rulemakin g action . However , your conunent s an

d argument s wil l b e place d i n adatabas e fo r futur e consideratio n sboul d th e FA A determine tha

t rulemakin g i s necessary .12/16/201 0 14:4 7 816329410 6 SA D PAG E 03/0 3

(1 4 CF R§ 11.53) , yourpehbo n fo r rulemaking i s hereb y denied . Sincerely ,

^- Y Dorend i D . Bake

r ) Director , Aircraf

t Certificatio n Servic e
[Cite as State ex rel. Goldsby v. Donnelly, 2013-Ohio-2921.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 99863 

STATE, EX REL., PHILLIP GOLDSBY 

RELATOR 

vs. 

JUDGE MICHAEL P. DONNELLY 

RESPONDENT 

JUDGMENT: 

WRIT DENIED

Writ of Procedendo 

Motion No. 465360 

Order No. 466033 

RELEASE DATE: July 1, 2013 
FOR RELATOR 

Phillip Goldsby, pro se 

13521 Rugby Ave. 

Cleveland, OH 44110

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT 

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

James E. Moss 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

9th Floor, Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
TIM McCORMACK, J.: 

{¶1} On May 3, 2013, the relator, Phillip Goldsby, commenced this procedendo 

action against the respondent, Judge Michael Donnelly, to compel the judge to issue final, 

appealable orders for two motions for jail-time credit that he filed on September 19, 2012, 

and March 22, 2013, in the underlying case, State v. Goldsby, Cuyahoga C.P. No. 

CR-559356. He maintains that he is entitled to 86 days of jail-time credit. 

{¶2} On May 28, 2013, the respondent moved for summary judgment on the 

grounds of mootness. The docket of the underlying case shows that on March 5, 2013, 

the respondent judge resolved the September 19, 2012 motion by granting him 25 days of 

credit and, on April 5, 2013, resolved the March 22, 2013 motion by granting him a total 

of 27 days of credit. Moreover, attached to the dispositive motion was a certified copy 

of a journal entry, file-stamped May 15, 2013, in the underlying case, granting Goldsby a 

total of 71 days of credit. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s 

website shows that Goldsby was released from prison on May 22, 2013. Goldsby never 

filed a response to the motion for summary judgment. Thus, Goldsby has received his 

requested relief, and this action is moot. State ex rel. Corder v. Wilson, 68 Ohio App.3d 

567, 589 N.E.2d 113 (10th Dist.1991). 

{¶3} Additionally, the relator failed to support his complaint with an affidavit 

“specifying the details of the claim” as required by Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). State ex rel. 

Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-4688, 
914 N.E.2d 402; State ex rel. Wilson v. Calabrese, 8th Dist. No. 70077, 1996 Ohio App. 

LEXIS 6213 (Jan. 18, 1996). 

{¶4} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent’s motion for summary 

judgment and denies the writ. Costs assessed against the relator. This court directs the 

Clerk of the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals to serve upon the parties notice of this 

judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B). 

 

 

TIM McCORMACK, JUDGE 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
# Hurlburt Field Spill Prevention and Response Exercise 

/ Published Feb. 28, 2022
HURLBURT FIELD, Fla., 
Members of the 1st Special Operations Wing, TK&K Services and Defense Logistics Agency Energy participate in a spill prevention and response exercise Feb. 24, 2022, at Hurlburt Field, Florida. The exercise tested the response and clean-up capabilities of on base and local agencies.

*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Hurlburt Field website.*
2016-1686.

#### Spellman Outdoor Advertising Servs., L.L.C. v. Turnpike & Infrastructure Comm.

Portage App. No. 2015-P-0081, 2016-Ohio-7152.

O’Donnell, J., dissents.

Fischer, J., not participating.