alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Documentary showcases DLA’s 60 years as DOD logistics provider

/ Published Jan. 13, 2022
FORT BELVOIR, Va. , 
Mary Martinez gained a keen sense of troops’ need for supplies while talking on the phone to an officer during the Vietnam War.

“I could hear bombs in the background and he wanted to know where his shipment was at,” the former Defense Logistics Agency Distribution employee says in a new documentary that recounts the agency’s 60-year history.

Over 30 former and current employees share personal stories about milestones in DLA’s quest to become the premiere supply agency for the military services and other federal agencies.

The 30-minute documentary proves wrong the early skeptics who thought a largely civilian organization could never handle the challenge of consolidating supplies and logistics services for the entire Defense Department.

The agency was created as the Defense Supply Agency in 1961 through a handwritten memo. Its first employees worked in rat-infested buildings no one else wanted, processing orders with pens and pencils.

While the services clung to stovepiped methods of supply, Army Maj. Gen. Andrew T. McNamara, a combat quartermaster during World War II and DLA’s first director, championed the agency’s mission of providing joint support at the best cost to taxpayers. By the end of its second year, the agency managed over 1 million items and had an inventory worth $2.5 billion. By 1969, it had delivered over 22 million tons of dry cargo and 14 million tons of bulk fuel to Vietnam. Its depot network flourished and its mission grew from supply operations to full-scale logistics support seemingly overnight.

The documentary traces the steps DLA took to bring stability during the 1970s energy crisis and the ways it continued bringing efficiency to its support and business practices. DLA Land and Maritime’s Debbie Miller remembers the introduction of computers, when employees in an entire bay shared a single computer.

“Your team had an assigned time. If nobody from your team went and used the computer, then you lost your time,” she says in the documentary.

To prove its cost-effectiveness, DLA Disposition Services began using the internet in the 1980s to create a searchable database for customers to view and order material. Rodney Moskun demoed the product for DLA Headquarters leaders. They liked what they saw but didn’t think it would catch on.

“It speaks for itself now,” Moskun says of the business systems DLA has since created with web technology.

The documentary tells how the past three decades brought yet more growth in DLA’s responsibility. From deploying alongside troops and supporting humanitarian missions like the Ebola crisis and current pandemic, the agency has benefited the nation as well as its warfighters.

The documentary, which is dedicated to past and present DLA employees, took 10 months to create and includes over 100 historical photographs, said Nutan Chada, who’s been interviewing employees and telling DLA’s story since 1995.

“I believe in DLA people and the DLA mission. Everyone pours their heart and soul into supporting our customers, with so much passion and dedication,” she said.
#### In the Matter of Derick B., Respondent, v Catherine L., Appellant. In the Matter of Catherine L., Appellant, v Derick B., Respondent.

[65 NYS3d 40]

Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Karen Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about September 10, 2014, upon the appellant mother’s default, which imposed a two-year final order of protection on behalf of the father Derick B. and the subject child, unanimously dismissed, without costs. Order, *512same court (Tracey Bing, J.), entered on or about June 29, 2016, which dismissed the mother’s petition for modification of a custody order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The mother’s appeal from the September 10, 2014 order of protection is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order issued upon default *(see Matter of Pedro A. v Susan M.,*95 AD3d 458 [1st Dept 2012]).

The mother failed to show a change in circumstances to warrant modification of the custody order *(see Matter of Adragna v Fuori,*129 AD3d 950 [2d Dept 2015]; *Matter of Lowe v Bonelli,*129 AD 3d 1135, 1137 [3d Dept 2015]). The mother’s argument that the custodial father failed to foster a bond between her and the child is unavailing. Under the circumstances here, the father was under no obligation to take affirmative steps to have the child interact with the mother, as during the relevant time period, the stay-away order of protection prohibited her from having any contact with the child unless ordered by the court.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6552

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEMETRIOS DONELL MCNEILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00318-D-1)

Submitted: November 18, 2021 Decided: November 22, 2021

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demetrios Donell McNeill, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Lucy Partain Brown, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Demetrios Donell McNeill appeals the district court’s orders denying his second 

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the 

First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239, and denying 

his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in denying McNeill’s motions. See United States v. 

Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, No. 

21-5624, 2021 WL 4733616 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2021); see also United States v. High, 997 F.3d 

181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court’s order denying compassionate release 

where “[t]he court’s rationale . . . was both rational and legitimate under [18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a)]” and “the court sufficiently explained its denial to allow for meaningful 

appellate review” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we deny McNeill’s 

motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

United States v. McNeill, No. 5:15-cr-00318-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 8, 2020; Mar. 30, 2021). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
# Security measures to be satisfied prior to travel

/ Published Aug. 30, 2021
Richmond, Va., 
As you are planning a trip, the last thing on your mind is making sure you have completed all the security requirements. To comply with DODI 2000.16-V1 Antiterrorism Standards, all Defense Department employees and DOD contractors must follow the outlined instructions and information listed below to ensure you have a safe trip:

Level I Antiterrorism Training must be completed within 12 months of travel. This training can be accessed in the Defense Logistics Agency Learning Management System or DLA contractors may access the training via this link.

A valuable source of information for traveling outside the United States is the Foreign Clearance Guide. The guide instructs you on the requirements for visiting a particular major command or geographical region. Reviewing this guide is mandatory for personnel traveling on official business and highly recommended for personal trips.

Another good resource is the State Department’s website. It offers important information on passports, COVID-19 protocols and travel advisories for countries you plan to visit.

DLA employees who want additional security and safety tips, please contact Russell Pitts at Russell.pitts@dla.mil for two digital handouts: Antiterrorism Individual Protective Measures and Antiterrorism Self-Help Guide 5260. These documents are loaded with travel safety information.

Finally, practice good operational security!  Report any unusual occurrences to the DLA Intelligence Office within three to five days upon your return.
No. 09-1465.

#### James R. Pipes, Petitioner v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 835, 131 S. Ct. 388,

178 L. Ed. 2d 36,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5901.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 535.
No. 09-11136.

#### Stephen M. Kessler, Petitioner v. Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary.

562 U.S. 863, 131 S. Ct. 389,

178 L. Ed. 2d 87,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6738.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
DLA Distribution Donnie Thompson to receive 2021 Spirit of Hope award
 
  By Matthew Mahoney, DLA Distribution Public Affairs
  Donnie Thompson, chief, Deployments and Training, at Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, will be awarded the 2021 Department of Defense Spirit of Hope award at a ceremony at the Pentagon Sept. 16. The Spirit of Hope award is presented by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to individuals or organizations that epitomize selfless service and dedicated commitment to our military. The history of the award comes from the contributions made by entertainer Bob Hope during World War II. “There are few words to express the appreciation for all that Donnie has and continues to do in support of our Military, their families, his community, DLA and DLA Distribution,” said Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Keith Reventlow, commanding general, DLA Distribution. Thompson, a Navy veteran, currently serves as the Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars post 1620 in Middletown, Pennsylvania, a VFW post that wouldn’t be around today, if it were not for the dedicated efforts of Thompson. Closed in early 2009, it was through Thompson’s efforts that VFW post 1620 was brought back to life, continuing their mission to assist veterans and their community.
Under Thompson’s leadership VFW post 1620 would lead state efforts in assisting veterans with housing, medical, meals, employment, transportation and even obtained COVID-19 vaccinations for over 150 veterans. Despite the toll that COVID-19 was placing on our nation, Thompson still motivated his post to keep on with the long-standing tradition of creating Buddy Poppies. A tradition normally carried on by our disabled veterans that were not able to gather due to the pandemic. VFW post 1620 would create more than 125,000 of the red flowers. The local community benefits from the efforts of Thompson and his team through college scholarship programs, donations to schools and after school programs, and regular visits to nursing homes and schools. Thompson joins the ranks of many great Americans honored with this prestigious award to include Emmy Award-winning Actor, Gary Sinise, who was recognized in 2012 for his efforts in supporting our Nation’s military.
No. 09-11338.

#### Raymond T. Boden, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania.

562 U.S. 874, 131 S. Ct. 182,

178 L. Ed. 2d 108,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6779.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Office, denied.

Same case below, 972 A.2d 548.
|                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                     
|                                                                                                  
|Price of Rio Grande, TX Natural Gas Pipeline Imports from Mexico (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                  
|Price of Rio Grande, TX Natural Gas Pipeline Imports from Mexico (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | 3.10   | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### Christine O’Sullivan, Appellant, v 7-Eleven, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[54 NYS3d 582]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered on or about May 19, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted in this action where plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on an accumulation of slush in front of a counter in a 7-Eleven store, during an ongoing snowstorm. Defendants were not required to provide a constant, ongoing remedy for an alleged slippery condition caused by moisture tracked indoors during a storm *(see Richardson v S.I.K. Assoc., L.P.,*102 AD3d 554 [1st Dept 2013]). Moreover, defendants demonstrated that they employed reasonable maintenance measures to prevent such a condition *(see Pomahac v TrizecHahn 1065 Ave. of Ams., LLC, 65*AD3d 462, 466 [1st Dept 2009]), by laying out a mat, placing an *659orange cone on the floor, and regularly mopping the store during the day, including within 15 minutes before plaintiff’s accident. These actions were “reasonable measures to remedy a hazardous condition” *(Toner v National R.R. Passenger Corp.,*71 AD3d 454, 455 [1st Dept 2010]).

The record also shows that defendants did not have constructive notice of the dangerous wet condition. The fact that it was snowing, with water and slush tracked in, does not constitute notice of a particular dangerous situation, warranting more than the laying of floor mats *(see Garcia v Delgado Travel Agency,*4 AD3d 204 [1st Dept 2004]).

Furthermore, defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. is not liable by virtue of its franchise agreement with defendant Sakong, pursuant to which it relinquished control of the day-to-day operations of the store, including maintenance, to Sakong *(see Schoenwandt v Jamfro Corp.,*261 AD2d 117 [1st Dept 1999]).

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.
No. 09-10043.

#### Mitchell Makidon, Petitioner v. Jeffrey Woods, Warden.

562 U.S. 843, 131 S. Ct. 75,

178 L. Ed. 2d 51,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5976.

October 4, 2010.

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



Exhibit 11

Computation of Earnings Per Share

|                |                                  |  |                                |           |  |      |   |           |      |  |   |           |  |  |      |           |  |      |   |           |   |  |   |           |  
|--------------- | -------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------ | --------- |  | ---- | - | --------- | ---- |  | - | --------- |  |  | ---- | --------- |  | ---- | - | --------- | - |  | - | --------- | -
|                |                                  |  | Fiscal Year Ended December 31, |          
|                |                                  |  |                                |          
|                |                                  |  | 2002                           |           |  | 2001 |   |           | 2000 |  |   | 1999      |  |  | 1998 |           |  | 1997 |  
|                |                                  |  |                                |           |  |      |   |           |      |  |   |           |  |  |      |           |  |      |  
|BASIC & DILUTED |                                  |  |                                |           |  |      |   |           |      |  |   |           |  |  |      |           |  |      |   |          
|                | Net income (loss)                |  | $                              | 1,252,000 |  |      | $ | 110,000   |      |  | $ | 504,0 00  |  |  | $    | 475,000   |  |      | $ | (113,000  | ) |  | $ | (602,000  | )
|                | Basic average shares outstanding |  |                                | 1,488,764 |  |      |   | 1,488,764 |      |  |   | 1,488,764 |  |  |      | 1,309,966 |  |      |   | 1,265,000 |   |  |   | 1,051,329 |  
|                | Diluted average shares           |  |                                |           |  |      |   |           |      |  |   |           |  |  |      |           |  |      |   |           |   |  |   |           |  
|                | outstanding                      |  |                                | 1,511,139 |  |      |   | 1,494,328 |      |  |   | 1,488,764 |  |  |      | 1,309,966 |  |      |   | 1,265,000 |   |  |   | 1,051,329 |  
|                |                                  |  |                                |           |  |      |   |           |      |  |   |           |  |  |      |           |  |      |   |           |   |  |   |           |  
|                | Net income (loss) per share:     |  |                                |           |  |      |   |           |      |  |   |           |  |  |      |           |  |      |   |           |   |  |   |           |  
|                | Basic                            |  | $                              | 0.84      |  |      | $ | 0.07      |      |  | $ | 0.34      |  |  | $    | 0.36      |  |      | $ | (0.09     | ) |  | $ | (0.57     | )
|                | Diluted                          |  | $                              | 0.83      |  |      | $ | 0.07      |      |  | $ | 0.34      |  |  | $    | 0.36      |  |      | $ | (0.09     | ) |  | $ | (0.57     | )

53
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlton Colon, Appellant.

[56 NYS3d 884]

Appeals by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from three sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Murphy, J.), all imposed August 26, 2015, upon his pleas of guilty, on the ground that the sentences were excessive.

Ordered that the sentences are affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waivers of his right to appeal were invalid *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 264-265 [2011]) and, thus, do not preclude review of his excessive sentence claims. However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentences imposed were not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Rivera, Cohen, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.2


                  Certification of Chief Financial Officer

     I, Lyndell G. Mosley, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary-
Treasurer of The Monarch Cement Company (the "Company"), do hereby certify in
accordance with 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:

     (a)  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
          ended March 31, 2003, which this certification accompanies,
          fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (b)  The information contained in the Company's Quarterly Report
          on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, which this
          certification accompanies, fairly presents, in all material
          respects the financial condition and results of operations of
          the Company.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Monarch Cement Company and will be retained by The Monarch
Cement Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

Dated:  May 14, 2003.


                                           /s/ Lyndell G. Mosley
                                          Lyndell G. Mosley, CPA
                                          Chief Financial Officer and
                                          Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
2017-0010.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Rutherford.

On certification of default. On relator’s motion to remand proceedings to Board of Professional Conduct to initiate default proceedings seeking permanent disbarment. Motion granted. The interim default suspension imposed against respondent on February 1, 2017, shall remain in place while this matter is pending before the board. Proceedings before this court in this case are stayed until further order of the court.
#### Koster, Brady & Nagler, LLP, et al., Respondents, v Paul F. Callan et al., Appellants.

[65 NYS3d 452]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered April 20, 2017, which denied defendants Martin W. Edelman and Edelman & Edelman, P.C. (the Edelman defendants) and defendant-counterclaim plaintiff’s Paul F. Callan’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on Callan’s counterclaims and granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously modified, on the *510law, to grant Callan and the Edelman defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the accounting cause of action as against the Edelman defendants, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

There is evidence in the record that Callan, while still a partner at plaintiff law firm, worked with defendants to woo a prospective client, concealing from his partners the true nature and extent of his involvement in the matter as he prepared to leave the firm, after which departure he entered into a contingency fee agreement on the matter.

Accordingly, Callan and the Edelman defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was correctly denied, except for the accounting claim as against the Edelman defendants. Since these defendants have no fiduciary duty to plaintiffs, plaintiffs have no right to an accounting from them, even predicated on their alleged aiding and abetting of Callan’s breach of fiduciary duty to plaintiffs *(see Front, Inc. v Khalil,*103 AD3d 481, 483 [1st Dept 2013], *affd on other grounds*24 NY3d 713 [2015]; *Adam v Cutner & Rathkopf,*238 AD2d 234, 242 [1st Dept 1997]).

No prejudice or surprise results from plaintiffs’ amendment of the complaint, and the proposed amended complaint is not palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law *(see McGhee v Odell,*96 AD3d 449 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gesmer, Kern and Moulton, JJ.

Motion to strike portions of reply brief and to adjourn appeal granted to the extent of striking portions of reply brief, and otherwise denied as academic.
#### Olivia S., Matter of (Dawn S.)

4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1566

denied*