alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA to demonstrate privacy compliance tool at Federal Privacy Summit

/ Published Jan. 25, 2023
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
A new tool that helps the Defense Logistics Agency comply with privacy laws and regulations governing personally identifiable information is being highlighted across the federal government as it celebrates Data Privacy Week Jan. 24-28.

The DLA Privacy Compliance Application is a software application designed to help the agency monitor which of its nearly 400 information technology systems contain PII. It also streamlines the completion of compliance documentation and privacy assessments.

Jennifer Nikolaisen, a senior privacy officer for DLA Information Operations, will demonstrate the app Jan. 26 during the Federal Privacy Summit. She calls it the new platinum standard for accomplishing privacy compliance and has demonstrated the tool for the IRS, Defense Health Agency and Federal Communications Commission among others.

“We’ve had a lot of agencies respond to this capability with their mouths hanging wide open in surprise that we’ve come up with this,” she said.

Privacy compliance is such a niche field, she added, that most organizations don’t have resources or time to spend on making processes easier.

System or program managers using the tool go through a series of prompted questions that determine whether PII is included in their systems. That PII could belong to anyone who works for or with DLA, from its worldwide employees and military customers to contractors or other federal agencies that use DLA services.

Documentation on whether PII exists in a particular system is then automatically sent to an information systems security manager who provides a digital signature agreeing that PII is or isn’t included. If PII is included, the app forwards the package to the privacy office for further assessment.

“This eliminates the back-and-forth exchange of emails and documents that we had before, which can be particularly cumbersome when you’re already getting hundreds of emails a day or there’s a vacant position.”

The app includes a customizable dashboard that tells users which tasks await their attention and alerts them when existing documentation is about to expire. Users can also generate data-specific reports.

“You can run a report on dates of birth, for example, to find out exactly how many dates of birth appear and in how many systems,” Nikolaisen said, adding that results can also include who the information is being shared with and how it enters DLA systems. “We can also see how long it takes a particular process to get through the workflow.”

Nikolaisen said DLA is committed to protecting PII and maintaining the trust of those it supports.

Data Privacy Week commemorates the Jan. 28, 1981, signing of Convention 108, the first legally binding international treaty dealing with privacy and data protection, according to the Federal Privacy Council. Jan. 28 has been designated as National Data Privacy Day in the United States since 2009. The campaign was expanded this year to Data Privacy Week with the goal of educating individuals and businesses about the importance of online privacy.
No. 10-38.

#### Hillary L. Falconer, et al., Petitioners v. Santa Cruz County, California, et al.

562 U.S. 890, 131 S. Ct. 247,

178 L. Ed. 2d 137,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7028.

October 4, 2010.

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

*138Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 791.
#### Kenneth Huang, as Administrator of the Estate of Stella Wong Huang, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v Andrew D. Franco et al., Respondents.

[51 NYS3d 188]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Velasquez, J.), entered April 4, 2016, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.

The plaintiffs alleged that on November 27, 2013, Stella Wong Huang (hereinafter the decedent) was struck by a vehicle owned by the defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., and operated by the defendant Andrew D. Franco. The decedent was attempting to cross Avenue C at its intersection with East 16th Street in Manhattan when the accident occurred. She died as a result of her injuries. The plaintiffs, as administrators of the decedent’s estate and individually, commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for, inter alia, wrongful death. The plaintiffs thereafter moved, among other things, for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court denied that branch of their motion. We reverse.

A pedestrian who has the right of way is entitled to anticipate that motorists will obey the traffic laws that require them to yield (see *McPherson v Chanzeb,*123 AD3d 1098, 1099 [2014]; *Yun Lu v Saia,*123 AD3d 813, 814 [2014]). Here, the plaintiffs established, through admissible evidence, that Franco failed to yield the right of way to the decedent, who was crossing the street within the crosswalk with the pedestrian “WALK” signal in her favor (see *Sanclemente v MTA Bus Co.,*116 AD3d 688 [2014]; *Billingy v Blagrove,*84 AD3d 848 [2011]; *Benedikt v Certified Lbr. Corp.,*60 AD3d 798 [2009]; see *also Terwilliger v Knickerbocker,*81 AD3d 1350 [2011]). The plaintiffs’ prima facie showing was buttressed by Franco’s admission that he did not see the decedent and that he struck her (see *Lesaldo v Dabas,*140 AD3d 708, 709 [2016]; *Voskin v*
      *704
      *Lemel,*52 AD3d 503 [2008]). As neither the plaintiffs’ submissions nor the defendants’ opposition papers revealed any triable issue of fact regarding the decedent’s comparative negligence *(cf. Castiglione v Kruse,*27 NY3d 1018 [2016]; *Thoma v Ronai,*82 NY2d 736, 737 [1993]), the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability *(see Benedikt v Certified Lbr. Corp.,*60 AD3d 798 [2009]; *Voskin v Lemel,*52 AD3d 503 [2008]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.
#### Patricia Seccombe, Appellant, v Serafina Restaurant Corp. et al., Respondents.

[767 NYS2d 875]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated September 3, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate their default in appearing and answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering must demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see *Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co.,*67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). The defendants reasonably relied on the insurer of the defendant Serafina Restaurant Corp. (hereinafter Serafina) to interpose an answer after the defendant Frank Caniglia, the president of Serafina, timely delivered the summons and complaint to his insurance broker, and the carrier failed to disclaim coverage or answer *(see Perez v Linshar Realty Corp.,*259 AD2d 532, 533 [1999]; *Fire Is. Pines v Colonial Dormer Corp.,*109 AD2d 815, 816 [1985]; *Swidler v WorldWide Volkswagen Corp.,*85 AD2d 239 [1982]). In addition, the defendants set forth facts sufficient to establish that they have a meritorious defense *(see Clarke v Brooklyn Union Gas Co.,*297 AD2d 779 [2002]; *Mittendorf v Brooklyn Union Gas Co.,*195 AD2d 449 [1993]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to vacate the default. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.
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








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2011 (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:




1. The Report 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: November 14, 2011



/s/ Richard L. Feinstein

Richard L. Feinstein

Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Parnell, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 870]

Appeal from a judgment of Monroe County Court (Marks, J.), entered March 1, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted sodomy in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting *1364him upon his plea of guilty of attempted sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.50 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court did not err in failing to hold a competency hearing prior to sentencing *(see*CPL 730.30). “The record reveals that the court was not ‘of the opinion that defendant may be an incapacitated person’ and it was not, therefore, obligated to issue an order of examination or otherwise to comply with CPL article 730” *(People v Sims,*217 AD2d 912, 912 [1995], *lv denied 87*NY2d 851 [1995]; *see People v Brown,*277 AD2d 972 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 732 [2001]; *People v Conforti,*263 AD2d 513, 514 [1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 878 [2000]). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
# C_2013226EN.01000801.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/8

---

Action brought on 12 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-320/13)

(2013/C 226/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, (1) and in any event by not notifying the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, (1) and in any event by not notifying the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27(1) of that directive;

1

| — | impose upon the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2009/28/EC at the daily rate of EUR 133 228,80 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose upon the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2009/28/EC at the daily rate of EUR 133 228,80 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2009/28/EC expired on 5 December 2010.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16.

1

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1236 

CAF 16-00369 

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ANDREW R. SABOL AND VICKI J. 

SABOL, PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS, 

V ORDER

 

PAULA G. IANNELLO, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

 

PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., UTICA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

WILLIAM H. GETMAN, WATERVILLE, FOR PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS. 

JOSEPH M. CIRILLO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, MOHAWK. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Herkimer County

(Anthony J. Garramone, J.H.O.), entered September 22, 2015 in a

proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among

other things, granted petitioners visitation with the subject

children. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Family Court.

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3316-3317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1449]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. PR98-4-000]


AOG Gas Transmission Company, L.P.; Notice of Petition for Rate 
Approval

January 15, 1998.
    Take notice that on January 6, 1998, AOG Gas Transmission Company, 
L.P. (AOGGT) filed pursuant to Section 284.123(b)(2) of the 
Commission's Regulations, a petition for rate approval requesting that 
the Commission approve its existing system-wide rates of $0.0019 per 
Mmbtu applicable to transportation service rendered from its system in 
the state of Oklahoma, and $0.1023 per Mmbtu applicable to 
transportation service rendered from its system in the state of New 
Mexico. These rates will be applicable to the transportation of natural 
gas under Section 311(a)(2) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 
(NGPA).
    Pursuant to Section 284.123(b)(2)(ii), if the Commission does not 
act within 150 days of the date of this filing, the rates will be 
deemed to be fair and equitable and not in excess of an amount which 
interstate pipelines would be permitted to charge for similar 
transportation service. The Commission may, prior to the expiration of 
the 150 day period, extend the time for action or institute a 
proceeding to afford parties an opportunity for written comments and 
for the oral presentation of views, data and arguments.
    Any person desiring to participate in this proceeding must file a 
motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and

[[Page 3317]]

Procedure. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before 
January 30, 1998. Copies of this petition are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1449 Filed 1-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1953 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1953

 To amend the Flood Control Act of 1968 to prohibit the imposition of 
certain fees for the use of developed recreation sites and facilities, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             March 21 (legislative day, February 22), 1993

   Mr. Ford introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Flood Control Act of 1968 to prohibit the imposition of 
certain fees for the use of developed recreation sites and facilities, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RECREATIONAL USER FEES.

    (a) Fees for Use of Developed Recreation Sites and Facilities.--
Section 210 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 460d-3) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``(a) Prohibition on Admission Fees.--'';
            (2) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
        ``User fees collected at the lakes and reservoirs referred to 
        in the preceding sentence--
            ``(1) shall be collected by officers and employees of the 
        United States only from users of highly developed facilities 
        requiring the continuous presence of personnel for the 
        maintenance and supervision of the facilities; and
            ``(2) may not be collected for access to or use of water 
        areas, undeveloped or lightly developed shoreland, picnic 
        grounds, overlook sites, scenic drives, or boat launching ramps 
        where no mechanical or hydraulic equipment is provided.''; and
            (3) by striking subsection (b).
    (b) Campsites.--Section 4(b) of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(b)) is amended by inserting before 
the last sentence the following: ``At each lake or reservoir under the 
jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers where camping is permitted, the 
Federal agency shall provide at least 1 primitive campground, 
containing designated campsites, sanitary facilities, and vehicular 
access, with respect to which no charge is imposed.''.

                                 <all>
```
# Hello DLA Land and Maritime Team!

/ Published July 24, 2020
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
I want to take a moment to share with you how honored I am to be your DLA Land and Maritime commander. These last few weeks transitioning to Columbus have been a fantastic experience, and I look forward to contributing to the outstanding legacy of military logistics support the DLA Land and Maritime team has established.

Your reputation as a vital component of DLA’s worldwide military logistics support mission is renowned among the nation’s military services. The respect I’ve witnessed when DLA’s name is mentioned among military leadership and service members who depend on us is overwhelmingly positive. Coming from back to back Fleet jobs, I can assure you how critical your support to our customer, the warfighter, truly is.  This is true whether you work in Central Ohio or at a DLR Det, Shipyard Det, a Customer Site, or are deployed. 

Now that I’ve been given the opportunity to join this remarkable team of professionals, I’m confident my appreciation for DLA Land and Maritime’s logistics prowess will increase even more.

Over the next few weeks, I intend to be fully absorbed in familiarizing myself with DLA Land and Maritime’s operational practices, but the emphasis on any high performing organization rests in taking care of its people. With that as a guiding principle, I’ll be taking advantage of every future opportunity to get better acquainted with each you and your directorate operations.  I also look forward to welcoming you back to the office when the conditions are safe to do so. 

In fact, I was inspired by an inscription I found on the wall.  It reads, “The DLA Land and Maritime Way...Expect the Best.  We provide Warfighter Logistics Excellence through Accountability, Teamwork, Urgency, Agility, and Innovation built upon a Commitment to Integrity, Diversity, and Mutual Trust and Respect.” Hopefully many of you are already familiar with these words.  I encourage you to take a moment to reflect on what they mean and take them to heart.

I’m ready to serve with you and continue DLA Land and Maritime’s legacy of commitment to executing our military logistics support mission; a mission that is critical to achieving America’s national security objectives.

Thank you for welcoming me as a new member to the Land and Maritime family! 

Warfighter first, Let’s get to it!

RDML KRISTEN B. FABRY, SC, USNCommanderDLA Land and Maritime
Order entered April 24, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00179-CV

THOMAS C. DAVIS, Appellant

V.

L. LOUISE DAVIS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-13843

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s April 22, 2019 motion for extension of time to file his 

brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief, received on April 22, 2019, filed 

as of the date of this order.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1  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 the Quarterly Report of Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gary C. Granoff, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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.   By: /s/Gary C. Granoff Gary C. Granoff Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer  May 14, 2008
Exhibit 32.1


                            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 the Quarterly Report of Scottish Re Group Limited (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Michael C. French, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 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 result of
               operations of the Company.

/s/ Michael C. French

Michael C. French
Chief Executive Officer
November 6, 2003

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Scottish Re Group Limited and will be retained by Scottish Re
Group Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.