alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Search and rescue success 

/ Published Oct. 13, 2019
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
After hours of searching the family of an 86 year old man suffering from Alzheimer’s called the Seminole, Oklahoma Police Department for help.

A family member stated that the man goes out each morning but is usually back in about 20 minutes. But that day he had gone out a gate and just keep walking.

                Police Officer William Younger of the Seminole, Oklahoma Police Department stands in frount of the Humvee that he and Chief David Hansen used to find a missing man suffering from Alzheimer’s. The Humvee came from DLA Disposition Services’ Law Enforcement Support Office.                            Officer William Younger                            Police Officer William Younger of the Seminole, Oklahoma Police Department stands in frount of the Humvee that he and Chief David Hansen used to find a missing man suffering from Alzheimer’s. The Humvee came from DLA Disposition Services’ Law Enforcement Support Office.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Courtesy photo by Seminole, Oklahoma Police Department VIRIN: 191010-O-DO441-0001Police Chief David Hansen responded to the call, he took his departments disaster-response Humvee that had been acquired from DLA Disposition Services’ through the LESO program.

While Hansen drove the Humvee over rough terrain keep his eyes on the way forward, Office William Younger rode in the passenger seat looking for the missing man.

Younger said they searched for more than 20 minutes. As they searched the temperature climbed in to the 90s, making dehydration a real possibility for the elderly man.

Hansen gives the credit to Younger for finding the man.

“He pointed the man out to me,” Hansen said “Looking through the brush I thought it was a horse but Officer Younger was right it was the missing man.”

Hansen said he has been part of the LESO program for three years. In that time the two biggest items his department has acquired is a boat and the Humvee.

He says he focus is on getting equipment to help rescue people from floods, tornados and other natural disasters that frequent Oklahoma.

“This Humvee we have is not up armored, it has not more of a tactical advantage than my Tahoe does.” Hansen said.

He went on to say the Humvee has the ground clearance they need to get through high water and to drive over brush. He pointed out that the winch on the front allows them to clear trees from the road so they can perform rescue operations after a tornado.

“Referring to the LESO program Hansen said, “It’s a great program it would be impossible for me to get these items without it, I could not afford them. I am a small agency... I don’t have the budget for these items without this program.”

The elderly man that Hansen and Younger found was returned to his family with only a few scratches on his arms, thanks to prepared police department and a former military Humvee from DLA Disposition Services.
#### New York City Asbestos Litig., Matter of

1st Dept: 142 AD3d 408

denied
EXHIBIT 99.2





REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





To the Board of Directors of


Bay View Bank:





We have
examined managements assertion about Bay View Acceptance Corporations (BVAC) compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of Americas Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP), except for minimum servicing standards I.4, III.3, III.4, V.2 through V.4, which BVAC has interpreted as being inapplicable to the servicing obligations set forth in the Bay View LG-1 Auto Trust Pooling and
Servicing agreement dated December 14, 1999 and the Bay View LJ-1 Auto Trust Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated March 29, 2000, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 included in the accompanying management assertion. Management is
responsible for BVACs compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the entitys compliance based on our examination.





Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about BVACs compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on BVACs compliance with the minimum servicing standards.





In our opinion, managements assertion that BVAC has complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 is fairly stated, in all material respects.





/s/    ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP





San Francisco


January 18, 2002






---




MANAGEMENT ASSERTION





January 18, 2002





As of and for the year ended
December 31, 2001, Bay View Acceptance Corporation (BVAC) has complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of Americas Uniform Single Attestation Program
for Mortgage Bankers, except for minimum servicing standards I.4, III.3, III.4, V.2 through V.4, which BVAC has interpreted as being inapplicable to the servicing obligations set forth in the Bay View LG-1 Auto Trust Pooling and Servicing
agreement dated December 14, 1999 and the Bay View LJ-1 Auto Trust Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated March 29, 2000. As of and for this same period, BVAC had in effect a fidelity bond policy in the amount of $40,000,000 and an errors and
omissions policy in the amount of $5,000,000.





/s/    JEFF BUTCHERJeff ButcherSenior Vice President and Controller/s/    JOHN ROSEJohn RoseExecutive Vice President & Chief Financial
Officer/s/    MICHAEL FLASHNERMichael FlashnerDirector of Loan Servicing
No. 12-8821.

#### Zapatero *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
# January New Employee Orientation welcomes 22 associates

/ Published Feb. 9, 2021
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime rang in the new year by welcoming 22 new employees at the New Employee Orientation held virtually through WebRTC Jan. 20-21. 

New employees were greeted by DLA Land and Maritime Deputy Commander Kenneth Watson, who provided insight on the major subordinate command and highlighted its mission to support the nation’s warfighters. Watson asked questions of the new employees and provided a one-on-one experience.

Most of the employees will be reporting to Columbus-based directorates within the organization, including Business Process Support, Human Resources Services, Internal Audit, Intelligence, Office of Counsel, Land Supplier Operations, Maritime Supplier Operations, Finance, and Engineering and Technical Support. Several employees will report to DLA Land and Maritime locations at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the detachment at Warren, Michigan. 

Various speakers provided essential information on topics such as benefits, equal employment opportunities, ethics and resiliency services available to employees.  

Orientation was followed up with the Reconstitution Plan presented by John Meckling Jan. 22.

Despite the challenges associated with the current health emergency, DLA Land and Maritime operations and the People and Culture Office continued to contribute toward Land and Maritime and successfully meeting challenges.

Please welcome to Columbus the following new employees: Jim Currie, James Dreitzler, Kymberly Dusseau, Todd Fewell, Robert Gadient, James Geobert, Penney Hughes, Erica Johnson, Bernice Lenix, Phil Manes, Sarah Miller, Jerry Minchell, Tanya Poe, Robert Riegel, Adam Russell, Dawn Sharick and Kyle Stein. For the detachments, please welcome Jaynai Aldeguer to Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard; Nicholas Harpin, Michelle Sigmon and Marfel Simcoe to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard; and Trenell Stevens to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Be sure to get a little “facetime” and welcome them aboard.

The next New Employee Orientation will be held virtually Feb. 17- 18.  All new employees to DLA Land and Maritime are required to attend in accordance with agency procedures and at the request of the DLA Land and Maritime Commander. 

Tenants of the Defense Supply Center Columbus Installation are welcome to attend. Please contact the Program Manager Dawn Sutton for an invite.
2017-1802.

#### State v. Sowards.

Gallia App. No. 06CA13, 2017-Ohio-8568. On motion to continue stay of execution of sentence. Motion denied.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
# DLA Energy’s Hall retires after 35 years of federal service

/ Published June 9, 2020

Darcy L. Hall, director, Manpower & Administrative Support Office, Defense Logistics Agency Energy, is retiring June 30 after 35 years of service.

Hall began her career serving three years in the U.S. Marine Corp before starting federal service as a staffing assistant clerk with DLA Human Resources, Cameron Station in Alexandria, Virginia. After a few moves, as a military spouse, she transferred to the DLA headquarters working for Human Resources, J1, before transitioning to Energy.

Carol O’Leary was Hall’s first supervisor at DLA Energy.

“We hired Darcy from J1 to gain her experience and knowledge in civilian personnel matters,” O’Leary said. “Her knowledge and insight helped DLA Energy with a wide assortment of civilian personnel matters, ranging from hiring, classifying positions or sensitive personnel issues.”

Darcy was our “go to” person on all matters relating to civilian personnel and provided great customer service the whole time I was there, O’Leary added. 

The DLA Energy Manpower and Administrative Office is the central point of contact for all personnel matters, both civilian and military. Their responsibilities include civilian and military movements (to include deployments); time and attendance; telework program; the Defense Travel System; and the central billing account which manages the large permanent change of station moves that are tracked and paid through the administrative team.

“Operational support offices are the unsung heroes,” Hall said. “Without us, missions fail and without missions, we wouldn’t have a job.”

Noted for her candor, Hall said the key to her success is patience and flexibility.

“You always have to get work done, and you have to be able to pivot with new leadership and reach out to those with the knowledge,” she said.

Hall’s retirement plans include relocating to Bradenton/Sarasota area of Florida.

“It’s time to let the next generation take over,” Hall said. “I am looking forward to relaxing and doing anything I want to do.”
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31208-31209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-568-000]

Norse Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Petition For Declaratory Order

June 2, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 22, 1998, Norse Pipeline, LLC (Norse), 2500 
Tanglewilde, Suite 250, Houston, Texas 77063, filed in Docket No. CP98-
568-000, a petition, pursuant to Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act 
(15 U.S.C. 717(b)) and Rule 207(a)(2) of the Commission's Regulations, 
for a declaratory order disclaiming jurisdiction over certain 
facilities to be acquired from Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation 
(Columbia), designated as the Project Penny facilities, located in the 
States of New York and Pennsylvania, as more fully set forth in the 
petition, which is on file with the Commission and open for public 
inspection.
    Concurrently with this application, Columbia, in Docket No. CP98-
569-000, filed an application to abandon, by sale, certain facilities 
known as the Project Penny facilities. Norse states that Norse and 
Columbia entered into an April 9, 1998, agreement under which Columbia 
will sell and Norse will acquire certain assets and facilities located 
in

[[Page 31209]]

Cattaraugus and Chautauqua counties, New York, and Crawford, Erie, and 
Warren counties, Pennsylvania for $21,800,000. Norse relates the 
facilities include 336 miles of pipeline and seven compression 
facilities.
    Norse requests the Commission to declare the pipeline and 
compressor facilities to be acquired from Columbia as exempt gathering 
facilities under Section 1(b) of the NGA.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said application should on or before June 23, 1998, file 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance 
with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) and the regulations under the 
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission 
will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be 
taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party in any proceeding 
herein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the 
Commission's rules.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15092 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
Exhibit No. 12.

Mountain Fuel Supply Company
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                12 Months Ended
                                                 June 30,
                                                    1996        1997
                                                (Dollars in Thousands)
<S>                                             <C>         <C>
Earnings

Income before income taxes                          $40,208     $45,639
Plus debt expense                                    16,594      17,271
Plus allowance for borrowed
   funds used during construction                       349         257
Plus interest portion of rental expense                 296         170
                                                    $57,447     $63,337

Fixed Charges

Debt expense                                        $16,594     $17,271
Plus allowance for borrowed
   funds used during construction                       349         257
Plus interest portion of rental expense                 296         170
                                                    $17,239     $17,698

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                     3.33        3.58

</TABLE>
#### Millicent Sindoni, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[768 NYS2d 342]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J), dated August 28, 2002, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. A magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) examination of the plaintiffs cervical spine taken in June 1996 showed bulging discs at the C4-5 and the C5-6 levels, which flattened the thecal sac. The appellant, who was aware of the MRI examination, failed to demonstrate that the bulges were not causally related to the subject accident or that the bulges were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Accordingly, the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for judgment as a matter of law *(see Shin v Torres,*295 AD2d 495 [2002]). Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs papers raised a triable issue of fact *(see Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy,*226 AD2d 437 [1996]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Rule 3170 Clean Air Act Fee Assessment, Fee Year 20XXFacility: XYZ Widget Manufacturing, Inc.Facility Address:Facility Number: Z-222Facility Major for NOx?: Yes, fee applicableFacility Major for VOC?: No, fee not applicableCEU CEU NOx CEU CEU VOCPermit Number Equipment DescriptionA. Fee YearB. Baseline for NOx? Credit ($) D. Fee Year E. Baselinefor VOC? Credit ($)Z-222-1-3 Natural Gas Fired Boiler 20 22.5 no NA NA NA NA NAZ-222-2-0 Widget Stamper 5 5 yes $8,500 NA NA NA NAZ-222-5-3 Aluminum Crucible 8 7 no NA NA NA NA NATotal Facility Emissions (tons): 33 34.5 NA NAEmissions subject to fee: 5.4NATotal Facility Fees/(Credits): $45,900($8,500)NA NA$37,400Notes: 1) Fees (and credits) are based on the calculations specified in Rule 3170:Fee= (Fee Year emissions - (80% of Baseline Emissions)) x Fee Rate2) Fee Rate for 20XX is $8500/ton ($5000/ton in 1990 dollars, adjusted for federal CPI)3) CEU = Clean Emissions Unit4) NA = Not ApplicableNOx Emissions (tons/yr) VOC Emissions (tons/yr)Total Facility Fees (NOx fees plus VOC fees minus credits):Attachment I - Sample Fee Calculation Worksheet
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, John F. Wilkens, as Chief Financial Officer of AESP, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that
to my knowledge:  1.
    The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
December 31, 2004 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and  2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date:
May 10, 2005
    
    /s/ John F. WilkensJohn F. WilkensChief Financial Officer
No. 09-10538.

#### Kenneth J. Kanger, Petitioner v. Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 846, 131 S. Ct. 88,

178 L. Ed. 2d 55,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5853.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 09-1363.

#### Dava Dalvit, et al., Petitioners v. United Airlines, Inc.

562 U.S. 830, 131 S. Ct. 95,

178 L. Ed. 2d 28,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6188.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 359 Fed. Appx. 904.
#### Lynch, Matter of, v Annucci

3d Dept: 151 AD3d 1148

denied*
#### In the Matter of Ryan Barbur, Appellant, v Anthony J. Annucci, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

[52 NYS3d 237]

Appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court (Zwack, J.), entered January 27, 2016 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denying petitioner’s grievance.

Amended judgment affirmed. No opinion.

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, without costs.
|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                 
|View History: Annual                                           
|View History: Annual                                           
|View History:                                                  
|                                                               
|No chart available.                                            
|No chart available.                                            
|                                                               
|                                                               
|Indiana Natural Gas International Receipts (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024