alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jennifer Cangro, Appellant, v Park South Towers Associates et al., Respondents.

[61 NYS3d 484]

*490Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered August 4, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and for monetary sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff is enjoined from commencing any further litigation relating to this matter without permission of this Court. The Clerk of this Court is directed to accept no filings from plaintiff as to such matter without prior leave of the Court.

Although plaintiff has failed to assemble a proper record on appeal (CPLR 5526; 22 NYCRR 600.5), sufficient evidence is contained within the appendix to support affirmance of the order. The first 23 claims made by plaintiff, in this third action against these defendants, were previously raised, or could have been raised, in the prior proceedings, and are thus barred by res judicata *(see Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez,*46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]). Plaintiff’s defamation claims were correctly dismissed as untimely (CPLR 215 [3]). In addition, the claims are not pleaded with the requisite particularity (CPLR 3016 [a]), and the alleged offending statements are protected by the litigation privilege because they were made in the context of a judicial proceeding to which they were directly related *(see Front, Inc. v Khalil,*24 NY3d 713, 718-719 [2015]). Given plaintiff’s history in this, and prior litigation, sanctions were appropriate *(see Cangro v Reitano,*130 AD3d 486 [1st Dept 2015], *appeal dismissed*26 NY3d 1021 [2015]; *Cangro v Rosado,*111 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2013], *appeal dismissed*22 NY3d 1132 [2014]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Singh and Moulton, JJ.
#### Misrahi Realty Corp., Appellant, v 18 Orchard Realty LLC, Respondent.

[47 NYS3d 907]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or about April 22, 2016, which denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer or, inter alia, compel defendant to respond to interrogatories, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer, since defendant’s conduct was not shown to be willful, contumacious or due to bad faith *(cf. Henderson-Jones v City of New York,*87 AD3d 498, 504, 505 [1st Dept 2011]). Moreover, the branch of the motion seeking to compel was properly denied based on the motion court’s determination that the numerous interrogatories, with subparts, were overbroad and burdensome *(see Botsas v Grossman,*7 AD3d 654, 655 [2d Dept 2004]; *Editel, N.Y. v Liberty Studios,*162 AD2d 345, 345 [1st Dept 1990]; *see also*Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR] § 202.70 [g] [rule 11-a (a)]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Webber, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.24

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                         PACIFICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                           STATUTORY RESTORATION PLAN

        This First Amendment, dated as of November 1, 2000 (the "Amendment"), to
the PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. Amended and Restated Statutory Plan ("Plan")
hereby amends the Plan as follows:

        1. Amendment to Section 3.1 (a). Section 3.1(a) is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety to read as follows:

        a. At the time of making the deferral elections described in Section
2.2, the Participant shall designate, on a form provided by the Committee, the
types of funds the Participant's Accounts will be deemed to be invested in for
purposes of determining the amount of Earnings to be credited to his or her
Account. Examples of the types of funds that may be available for investment
are: (i) Money Market Fund; (ii) Common Stock Fund; (iii) International Equity
Fund; (iv) Balanced Fund; (v) Growth Fund; (vi) Aggressive Growth Fund; (vii)
Bond Fund; and (viii) Global Equity Fund.

        In making the designation pursuant to this Section 3.1, a Participant
may specify that all or any multiple of a Participant's Account (at least 10
percent) be deemed to be invested in one or more funds. Weekly, a Participant
may change the designation made under this Section 3.1 with respect to amounts
contained in his or her Accounts or amounts to be credited to his Accounts by
current or future deferrals by filing an election, on a form provided by the
Committee, submitted no later than 12:00 a.m. Pacific Time, Wednesday of each
week. If a Participant fails to elect a type of fund under this Section 3.1, he
or she shall be deemed to have elected a fund similar to a Money Market Fund.


        2. Effectiveness of Plan. Except as expressly amended herein, the Plan
shall continue in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed in
all respects on as of the date hereof.

        3. Governing Law. This Amendment and the Plan shall be construed,
interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the United States and to
the extent not preempted by such laws, by the laws of the State of California.

        4. Capitalized Terms. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.

        5. Section Headings. The titles of the sections hereof appear as a
matter of convenience only, do not constitute a part of this Amendment and shall
not affect the construction hereof.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Plan is adopted as of November
1, 2000.


                                                 PACIFICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.


                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 By:
                                                 Title:
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

** **

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MOCON, Inc. on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Darrell B. Lee, ChiefFinancial Officer of MOCON, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that,to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of MOCON, Inc.

 

 

Date:  August 14, 2008

 
| /s/ Darrell B. Lee      |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Darrell B. Lee          |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
1405 N. Imperial Avenue, Suite 1, El Centro, CA 92243 Phone 760-353-8332 Fax 760-353-9149

www.ivedc.com

March 21, 2012

The Honorable Ray LaHood

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Alaska Airlines’ application for SAN-DCA, Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0029. 

Dear Secretary LaHood:

Imperial Valley Economic Development Corporation (IVEDC) fully supports the application of Alaska Airlines for 

air service between San Diego and Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA). San Diego is the largest region 

without announced service to DCA. Additionally, due to the profound community of interest between San Diego 

and the nation’s capital, the region generates the largest passenger market demand without nonstop service to 

the convenient and close-in airport serving our nation’s capital. 

San Diego’s sheer market size to Washington coupled with the fact that San Diego – Dulles average airfares 

are the highest of west coast cities should qualify it for a pair of the limited slots available. The high airfare is 

exacerbated when factoring in taxi fares from Dulles to Washington’s city center that average about $60 each 

way. This means travelers between Washington’s city center and San Diego via Dulles can pay on average 

close to $400 one-way. 

Located next door to San Diego County, Imperial County residents are frequent visitors to the San Diego region, 

using its airport for the majority of their travels. IVEDC works hand in hand with the San Diego Regional 

Economic Development Corporation in global marketing efforts for the region, called the Cali-Baja Mega 

Region. Bi-national business efforts are dealt with on a daily basis, calling for flights to our nation’s capital for 

meetings with our federal leadership and industry programs which are headquartered in Washington, D.C. 

There are also countless other San Diego-based and Washington-based businesses that are engaged in health 

science, telecommunications, and national defense that need quick and convenient access to Reagan National 

Airport. IVEDC has an immediate need for additional nonstop air service to our nation’s capital. Alaska Airlines 

service would add a needed nonstop option to a primary gateway to Washington, DC. IVEDC joins with the San 

Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, the 

World Trade Center San Diego, and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce in support of Alaska 

Airlines’ application for San Diego – Washington Reagan National slots.

We thank the Department of Transportation for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced docket and 

we hope to hear of a favorable review of Alaska Airlines’ San Diego – DCA proposal soon.

Sincerely,

Timothy E. Kelley

President/ CEO
# Celebrating DLA's 60th Anniversary: Don Peschka anniversary interview

/ Published Nov. 5, 2021

DLA is celebrating 60 years of logistics support since it was created Oct. 1, 1961. The theme is “Forged by History, Focused on the Future.” 

In this video interview, Don Peschka (retired) shares his memories and stories from his over 20 years of service with DLA Energy. Peschka served in DLA Energy as an Air Force major and a civilian from October 1983 to December 2004, when he retired. During his tenure, DLA Energy — along with DLA Headquarters — moved from Cameron Station in Alexandria, Virginia, to Fort Belvoir, Virginia, while the Defense Fuel Supply Center reorganized, becoming the Defense Energy Support Center. Peschka successfully guided this transition for the Bulk Fuels business team while maintaining a 100% on-time success rate for contract awards. 

Peschka is a member of the DLA Energy Inaugural Hall of Fame in 2016 and inducted into the DLA Hall of Fame in 2017. He is also a 2015 recipient of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Acquisition and Contracting Legends Award.

“What makes me most proud is the fact that each day when I went in that office, I tried to put aside everything else that was going on in my life to concentrate on one thing only: the men and women of our armed forces, who rely daily on everything that DLA does,” Peschka said.

For more stories, videos, and graphics highlighting the agency’s history and people, go to the DLA 60th Anniversary page.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2263

To authorize extension of time limitation for a FERC-issued hydroelectric

license.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 1 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Mr. GORTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To authorize extension of time limitation for a FERC-issued

hydroelectric license.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding the time limitation of section 13 of

4 the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory

5 Commission, upon the request of the licensee for FERC

6 Project No. 3701, is authorized, in accordance with the

7 good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements

8 of section 13 and the Commission’s procedures under such

9 section, to extend until May 31, 2000 the time required
2

•S 2263 IS

1 for the licensee to commence the construction of such

2 project.

Æ
#### Kathleen Bruno, Respondent, v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Respondent, and Hudson Transit Lines, Inc., Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 250]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered on or about April 18, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant Hudson’s motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims and cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact exist as to whether Hudson breached its duty as a common carrier to provide plaintiff with a safe place to disembark (see *Malawer v New York City Tr. Auth.,*18 AD3d 293, 294-295 [1st Dept 2005], *affd*6 NY3d 800 [2006]; *Conetta v New York City Tr. Auth.,*307 AD2d 333, 333 [2d Dept 2003]). The record shows that 15 or 20 passengers exited the bus before plaintiff. As she alighted, she stepped into a hole on the sidewalk and fell. The bus driver corroborated this testimony, stating that the hole was on the sidewalk, “[w]ithin one step” of where plaintiff disembarked. The bus driver further admitted that the hole caused plaintiff to fall. Additionally, plaintiff testified that, upon seeing where she fell, the bus driver exclaimed, “[Y]ou fell in that hole, they’re supposed to fix that hole.” Under the circumstances, where plaintiff stepped into a hole immediately upon alighting from the bus, the fact that a number of passengers safely descended before she did does not entitle Hudson to summary judgment *(see Orlick v Granit Hotel & Country Club,*30 NY2d 246, 250 [1972]; *Noskewicz v City of New York,*155 AD2d 646, 646 [2d Dept 1989]).

Issues of fact as to, among other things, whether Hudson breached its contractual duty to notify Port Authority of any needed repairs at the gate where the accident occurred compel denial of summary judgment on Port Authority’s contractual indemnification claim.

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Debbie Pastore, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 177]—

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 21, 2003, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not available for employment.

A claimant must be ready, willing and able to work in his or her usual employment in order to be eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits *(see*Labor Law § 591 [2]), and this Court has held that a lack of child care arrangements for a particular time period can render a claimant unavailable for work *(see Matter of McCarthy [Sweeney],*213 AD2d 912 [1995]). When this appeal was last before us, we withheld decision and remitted this matter to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for clarification as to whether claimant was precluded from receiving any unemployment insurance benefits or, rather, was being denied benefits only for the two dates that she was without child care (308 AD2d 649 [2003]). Upon remittal, the Board advised that the determination of unavailability was effective for October 11, 2002 and October 18, 2002 only, the dates upon which claimant lacked child care, and that claimant was otherwise eligible and had in fact received the full amount of unemployment insurance benefits due her for the entire benefit period. As the Board’s finding of unavailability for the two dates in question is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, and given that claimant has otherwise received the benefits to which she was entitled, the Board’s decision is affirmed.

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
# DLA leverages robotic automations to empower employees

/ Published March 10, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Va. , 
The Defense Logistics Agency’s robotics process automation program is using creative ideas and suggestions from business processes owners at DLA Aviation to better accomplish monotonous, repetitive tasks with unattended bots.

The effort involves citizen developers, an industry phrase for non-technical employees who help build IT solutions despite not having coding or application-building experience. Employees have done this for years through spreadsheets and database tools.

DLA became the first federal organization to develop unattended bots, which execute tasks and interact with systems without human involvement, in 2018. It has since deployed 111 automations, 80% of them unattended but with digital certificates to access websites and systems.

“By working with the DLA Aviation team, we are looking not only to empower the team to build their own automations to meet their goals and timelines, but also to learn what we need to add to the program so that we can expand the capability agencywide next year,” said Frank Wood, DLA Enterprise RPA program manager.

With just a little training, employees in functional communities such as operations, finance or contracting only need an idea for an application for the latest generation of low-code platforms to transform it into a working automation that complies with DLA’s cybersecurity policies.

“The RPA capability is something we have needed for a long time,” said Spencer Shaffer, DLA Aviation Business Process Support deputy director. “It gives us the ability to execute more workload without increasing the size of our workforce.”

Though many tasks at DLA Aviation require employees’ hands-on involvement, some can be accomplished via bots, such as those that process metrics and data sets overnight so they’re ready for a DLA employee at the beginning of the workday, he added.

In 2020, DLA Aviation’s citizen developers completed a curriculum that guides employees step-by-step in building and managing their own software bots. They are currently working to design, build and test three process automations scheduled for delivery in April. 

“Having this capability at the MSC level allows us to control automating MSC priorities without having to compete with priorities at the enterprise level,” Shaffer said.

DLA Aviation uses its local Business Process Management Governance Board to vet RPA ideas and determine if other processes exist to accomplish the intent.

Wood added that IT teams are often stretched thin working on mission-critical projects and keeping the business running smoothly. DLA’s citizen developers are creating a new model in enterprise innovation and developing solutions aligned with DLA’s strategic goals that can be shared across functional areas.
### Swanson, Brian (OST) From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Cc: Subject:

Dear Brian, Jim Lucas <jim.lucas@marshallelectronics.net> Sunday, July 29, 2012 2:23 PM Swanson, Brian (OST) customer.relations@flygreatlakes.com Docket: DOT-OST-2004-19916 

### : 17

., j**·~**

Regarding Docket: DOT-OST-2004-19916. 

## D c::o J .,j .**~·'' ~**  

# 0"'

... l'l'lttP

I would like to cast myvote for keeping Great Lakes Airlines as the provider of air service for the Visalia municipal airport. Last year I flew Great Lakes about 50 times and would have flowh more except for business scheduling issues. I work in Los Angeles and live in Visalia. My office is less than two miles from LAX in the aerospace area of El Segundo. ·It would be of no use to me if an airline flies between Visalia to Burbank and therefore I would not utilize the service. I also have great misgivings about flying in a single engine aircraft. Thank you for you consideration. 

### Jim Lucas ProductManager, BroadcastMultimedia Division MarshallElectronics Inc. 1910E. MapleAve EISegundo,CA.90245 (}) 800-800-6608 ext. 1221- TollFree (}) 001-310-333-0606 ext. 1221-lnternationa/

### ~ 310.333.0688 FAX (}) 424-225-0878 Cell 

### (1) http://www.marshall-usa.com &J 

### Jim.Lucas@Marshallelectronics.net

1
Exhibit No. 32.6   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with this report of Questar Gas Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A, Amendment No. 2 for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Kevin W. Hadlock, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  QUESTAR GAS COMPANY   September 19, 2011 /s/Kevin W. Hadlock Kevin W. Hadlock Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              12
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      114
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (6)
<INVENTORY>                                        221
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   378
<PP&E>                                             364
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (154)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,255
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              230
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                          60
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,255
<SALES>                                          1,222
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                              611
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     40
<INCOME-TAX>                                        16
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (11)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        13
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19


</TABLE>