alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA Aviation welcomes its 34th commander during change of command ceremony

/ Published July 5, 2022
Richmond, Va., 
Air Force Brig. Gen. David Sanford relinquished command to Air Force Brig. Gen. Sean Tyler June 30, making Tyler the 34th commander of Defense Logistics Agency Aviation during a Change of Command ceremony in the Frank B. Lotts Conference Center at Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. Sanford, who was selected for major general, will be director of logistics, engineering and force protection for Headquarters Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois.

DLA Director Navy Vice Admiral Michelle Skubic officiated the ceremony.

“There are not many priorities more important to America’s security efforts than providing equipment and parts to maintain our nation’s military aircraft...our fighting power.” said Skubic. “And you are in the thick of that day in and day out. You do so much,  so thank you, for what each and every one of you do.”

Skubic presented Sanford the Defense Superior Service Medal For his outstanding service as commander of DLA Aviation since taking command July 2019 - July 2022, and provided his wife, Rhonda Sanford, a certificate of appreciation for her support during her husband’s command.

Sanford bid farewell to the workforce and thanked them for their support during his time in command.

“What a phenomenal group of hardworking, dedicated individuals ... it has been my absolute honor and crowning point in my career to serve with each of you. Teamwork, collaboration, relationship building, empathy, respect, and commitment have been the ingredient to our success. I honestly believe there is nothing this team cannot accomplish when given the task. Thank you teammates and I will miss you all,” Sanford said before transferring responsibility to Tyler.

Skubic welcomed Tyler to command of DLA Aviation saying he has a diverse logistics background, both in command and staff positions, and from both tactical and strategic levels.

“Sean served at DLA Headquarters from 2015 to 2017,” Skubic said. “He knows DLA. He walks in the door with credibility, understanding DLA and already having forged connections across our DLA leadership team.”

Tyler previously served as the Director for Logistics, Engineering and Force Protection, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Honolulu, Hawaii, where he was responsible for the oversight, policy, guidance, training, and resources in support of 45,000 Pacific Air Forces personnel in 10 wings and three Numbered Air Forces. He also served with DLA Headquarters, Fort Belvoir, Virginia as the Executive Officer to the DLA Director, and the Chief of Staff, DLA Acquisition.

“I’m very excited to take this new position,” said Tyler. I am fully committed to supporting our DLA Director’s intent, the agency’s strategic plans, maintain and enhance readiness for our military service and combatant commands. As our Department of Defense continues to transition to a peer competitor focus, I am personally committed to aggressively identifying and removing any barriers to our abilities to deliver.” he said.
EXHIBIT 23
CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form S-8 RegistrationStatements of PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. and in the related Prospectusespertaining to the 1996 Stock Option Plan for Officers and Key Employees, the1996 Non-Officer Directors Stock Option Plan of PacifiCare Health Systems,Inc., the 1997 Premium Priced Stock Option Plan, the Amendment and Restatementof the PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. Savings and Profit-Sharing Plan, the2000 Employee Plan and the 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and in the FormsS-3 and S-4 Registration Statements (numbers 333-74812, 333-102909 and333-91704) of PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. and in the related Prospectusesof our report dated January 30, 2003 (except Note 11,as towhich the date is March 21, 2003) with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. included in theAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.
                                                                                                    /s/ ERNST& YOUNG LLP
Irvine, California
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

531 

KA 14-00408 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBERT HAIGLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

DAVISON LAW OFFICE PLLC, CANANDAIGUA (MARY P. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

DONALD G. O’GEEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (VINCENT A. HEMMING OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H. Dadd,

J.), rendered September 5, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon his plea of guilty, of promoting prison contraband in the second

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law, the plea is vacated and the

indictment is dismissed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his

plea of guilty of promoting prison contraband in the second degree

(Penal Law § 205.20 [2]), defendant contends that the judgment of

conviction must be reversed because there was no valid accusatory

instrument in existence at the time of the plea. We agree. Defendant

was indicted in a one-count indictment charging him with promoting

prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law § 205.25 [2]). 

County Court granted defendant’s motion to review the grand jury

minutes and, upon that review, concluded that the evidence before the

grand jury was not legally sufficient to support that charge but was

sufficient to support the lesser included offense of promoting prison

contraband in the second degree. Defendant then pleaded guilty to the

lesser included offense. 

“CPL 210.20 (6) provides that when a court decides to reduce a

count contained in an indictment [to a misdemeanor] on the ground that

it is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, the People do one

of the following: (1) accept the court’s order and file a prosecutor’s

information containing the reduced charge; (2) re-present the [higher

count] to a grand jury; or (3) appeal the court’s order” (People v

Casey, 66 AD3d 1128, 1129; see People v Jackson, 87 NY2d 782, 784). 

Here, however, the People did not take any of those three actions, and

defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge. Inasmuch as “ ‘[a]
-2- 531 

KA 14-00408 

valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable

jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution’ ” (People v

Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522, quoting People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 103),

the plea must be vacated and the indictment dismissed (see Casey, 66

AD3d at 1130; see also People v Chadick, 122 AD3d 1258, 1259). 

In light of our determination, we do not consider defendant’s

remaining contention. 

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
No. 09-11536.

#### Edward S. Young, Petitioner v. Louis S. Folino, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Greene, et al.

562 U.S. 886, 131 S. Ct. 217,

178 L. Ed. 2d 130,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6864.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# International Students visit DLA Distribution, Norfolk, Virginia

/ Published March 25, 2022
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Nine international students participating in a course led by the U.S. Navy Supply Corps School visited Defense Logistics Agency Norfolk, Virginia, March 1.

The course, the International Logistics Executive Advanced Development program, is a seven-week course designed to give senior international officers a better understanding of current trends in logistics and supply chain management from the military perspective. Nine international students are currently taking the course, representing seven nations which include Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand, Jordan, Chile, Colombia and Pakistan.

The students toured the Material Processing Center and the Intermodal Hub at DLA Distribution Norfolk, Virginia, led by the operations director, Julie Chandoo.

“The tour went well,” Chandoo said. “The students were very inquisitive and asked a lot of good questions.”

The MPC is designed to receive material for the Navy, provide material visibility, sort material by customer requirements and then deliver the material so it can be more easily placed into its location onboard the ship.

The IMH is a dynamic cross-dock facility that receives, processes, consolidates and containerizes export surface cargo and provides onward movement for cargo and retrograde received in its surface import operation. In addition to its designation as an official water port, the Norfolk IMH provides specialized pier-side stevedoring support for loading and offloading ship’s cargo.

Navy Capt. Justin Lewis, commander of DLA Distribution Norfolk, Virginia, is glad the students decided to take the tour at DDNV.

“As the DoD’s premier logistics hub in a region of such strategic significance as Hampton Roads, it’s important for our global partners to gain a better sense and understanding of the diverse portfolio at DDNV,” he said. “Each one of the visiting ILEAD officers is a logistics professional in his or her own country and I believe this type of tour gives them an enhanced appreciation of the capabilities and limitations of their own logistics and supply infrastructure. Team DDNV certainly gained a healthy perspective from each of the officer’s experiences too. That’s really what being a trusted global partner is about.”
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31261-31262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15115]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[OMB Control No. 2900-0525]


Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans 
Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 
(44 U.S.C., 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Veterans 
Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has 
submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA 
submission describes the nature of the information collection and its 
expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection 
instrument.

DATE: Comments must be submitted on or before July 8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY OF THE SUBMISSION CONTACT: Ron 
Taylor, Information Management Service (045A4), Department of Veterans 
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8015 
or FAX (202) 273-5981. Please refer to ``OMB Control No. 2900-0525.''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: VA MATIC, VA Form 29-0165.
    OMB Control Number: 2900-0525.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Abstract: The form is used to change the account number and/or bank 
from which a VA MATIC deduction was previously authorized. The 
information is used by VBA to process the veteran's request.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The Federal Register Notice with a 
60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of 
information was published on January 29, 1998 at page 4525.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 1,250 hours.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent: 15 minutes.

[[Page 31262]]

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,000.
    Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the 
information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, Allison Eydt, OMB 
Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 
10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-4650. Please refer to ``OMB 
Control No. 2900-0525'' in any correspondence.

    Dated: March 31, 1998.

    By direction of the Secretary.
Donald L. Neilson,
Director, Information Management Service.
[FR Doc. 98-15115 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Exhibit 15.9




CONSENT




We hereby consent to the reference to our studies relating to the valuation report of options granted by Plaza Centers N.V. ("the Company") to Elbit Imaging Ltd.'s Vice Chairman of the Board in respect of the Company's operations in India as of December 31, 2012, December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elbit Imaging Ltd. and to the incorporation by reference of this Annual Report in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (Registration No. 333-172122) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-117509, No. 333-130852, No. 333-136684 and No. 333-152820) filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd., as required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.




This consent is not to be construed as an admission that we are an expert or that we are a person whose consent is required to be filed under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.





/s/ Financial Immunities Dealing Room Ltd.


Financial Immunities Dealing Room Ltd.





Ness Ziona, Israel


November 26, 2013
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2286 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2286

   To amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for the use of 
  certain highway funds for improvements to railway-highway crossings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 14 (legislative day, July 11), 1994

 Mr. Lugar (for himself and Mr. Coats) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for the use of 
  certain highway funds for improvements to railway-highway crossings.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rail Grade Crossing Safety 
Enhancement Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RAILWAY-HIGHWAY CROSSING IMPROVEMENT.

    Section 153(h) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) Authority for alternative apportionment.--
                    ``(A) In general.--In lieu of a transfer of a 
                percentage of funds to the apportionment of a State in 
                a fiscal year under paragraph (1) or (2), the Secretary 
                may transfer all or a portion of the percentage of 
                funds applicable under such paragraph in that fiscal 
                year to the apportionment of the State under section 
                130 of this title.
                    ``(B) Condition of transfer.--The Secretary shall 
                exercise the authority provided under subparagraph (A) 
                in a fiscal year only upon the request of the chief 
                executive officer of the State concerned.
                    ``(C) Use of transferred funds.--Funds available to 
                a State pursuant to a transfer of funds under this 
                paragraph shall be used for the purpose set forth in 
                the first sentence of section 130(e) of this title.
                    ``(D) Treatment of exercise of authority.--
                Paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) shall apply to a transfer 
                under this paragraph. In the administration of such 
                paragraphs with respect to such a transfer, the 
                reference to section 402 of this title shall be deemed 
                to be a reference to section 130 of this title.''.
                                 <all>
```
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 600378

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### JULIO E. LIMON Logistics Specialist Seaman Apprentice (E

- 2 ), U.S. Navy Appellant

_____________

____________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Captain Ann Minami, JAGC, USN

. Convening Authority: Command ing Officer, USS NIMITZ (CVN 68)

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Commander

J ames M. Kennedy, JAGC, USN. For Appellant : Commander Robert D. Evans, Jr., JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 31 January 2017

_________________________ Before P ALMER , C AMPBELL , and H UTCHISON , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

F or the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
No. 09-11304.

#### Walter Duane White, Petitioner v. Joyce Francis, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 873, 131 S. Ct. 175,

178 L. Ed. 2d 105,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6699.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 371.
160 A.3d 1291

#### IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL S. GAROFALO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 023021998)

June 6, 2017

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 16-037, concluding that MICHAEL S. GAROFALO, formerly of SPARTA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1998, should be censured for violating *RPC*8.1(a)(know-*246ingly making a false statement of material act in a disciplinary matter), *RPC*8.4(b)(committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in all other respects, specifically, harassment, a violation of *N.J.S.A.*2C:33-4(a)), *RPC*8.4(c)(conduet involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and *RPC*8.4(g)(engaging in, in a professional capacity, in conduct involving discrimination);

And the Court having ordered respondent to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And the Court having preliminarily determined from its review of the matter that a six-month term of suspension is the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct;

And respondent through counsel, having waived his right to a hearing before the Court and having consented to a six-month term of suspension from the practice of law;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MICHAEL S. GAROFALO is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, effective immediately, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

Ordered that the Order to Show Cause issued in this matter is hereby discharged; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*1:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of *Rule*1:20—20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of *RPC*8.1(b) and *RPC*8.4(d); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to *Rule*1:10-2; and it is further

*247ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
Exhibit 12.

                                 MOBIL CORPORATION
                 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                   (In millions)

                                                                        Three
                                                                        Months
                                                                        Ended
                                      Year Ended December 31,           Mar.31,

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


                             1993      1994    1995     1996     1997     1998

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


Income Before Change in
  Accounting Principle ..  $2,084    $1,759  $2,376   $2,964   $3,272   $  705

Add:
Income taxes ............   1,931     1,919   2,015    3,147    3,093      529

Portion of rents
  representative of
  interest factor .......     339       340     368      376      346       87

Interest and debt
  discount expense ......     529(a)    461     467      455      428       93

Earnings less (greater)
  than dividends from
  equity affiliates......     265       (40)    (51)     153      (59)      13


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


Income as Adjusted ......  $5,148    $4,439  $5,175   $7,095   $7,080   $1,427
                           ======    ======  ======   ======   ======   ======
Fixed Charges:
Interest and debt
  discount expense ......  $  529(a) $  461  $  467   $  455   $  428   $   93
Capitalized interest ....      42        37      47       78      101       16
Portion of rents
  representative of
  interest factor .......     339       340     368      376      346       87

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

Total Fixed Charges .....  $  910    $  838  $  882   $  909   $  875   $  196
                           ======    ======  ======   ======   ======   ======
Ratio of Earnings to
  Fixed Charges .........     5.7(a)    5.3     5.9      7.8      8.1      7.3
                           ======    ======  ======   ======   ======   ======


Note:

  For the years ended December 31, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 and the three
months ended March 31, 1998, Fixed Charges exclude $31 million, $37 million, $28
million,  $24  million,  $29 million and $6 million,  respectively,  of interest
expense  attributable to debt issued by the Mobil Oil Corporation Employee Stock
Ownership Plan Trust and guaranteed by Mobil.


(a)   Excludes the  favorable  effect of $205 million of interest  benefits from
      the resolution of prior-period tax issues.













MOBIL                                    - 18 -

<PAGE>
#### People v Baxter

4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1109 (Monroe)

denied 8/31/16 (Rivera, J.)
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE

INTEREST OF

B.S.R., A CHILD. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 17

- 00188

- CV

Appeal from the

383rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2011DCM10219)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We

further order Appellant pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be certified below for

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.