alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# POL fuels the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing

/ Published July 23, 2022
332ND AIR EXPEDITIONARY WING , 
Every time a 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing member flips a light switch or starts a vehicle, the fuel required is a direct result of the efforts of the 332nd Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron fuels flight.

“The fuels flight here is responsible for receiving, storing, sampling, and distributing petroleum products to customers, to include maintenance quadrants and fuel for aircraft,” said Tech. Sgt. William Ellzey, 332d ELRS fuels distribution non-commissioned officer in charge.

The fuels flight is commonly referred to as POL which stands for petroleum, oil and lubricants. POL stays busy 24/7 providing diesel, motor gasoline, and jet fuel needed for 332d AEW to continue to generate, execute, and sustain combat air power in their area of responsibility.

“Ultimately, the mission is combat sortie generation and we do that by providing dry, cleaned fuel safely and in a timely manner,” said Ellzey.

The 332d AEW relies on POL to provide fuel for all aircraft and vehicles and to maintain generator tank levels to keep heating, ventilation, and air condition units running, lights on, and everything in-between.

“The fuel service center is the focal point for the flight; they receive fuel requests from the maintenance operations center and then facilitate the appropriate truck, operator, and equipment for the customer,” said Ellzey.Ellzey went on to explain that distribution is the tip of the spear because the operators go out with the fuel and aircraft. The Fuels Operational Readiness Capability Equipment section, or FORCE, maintain the facilities, the equipment used to offload and store petroleum products, and run the fill stand operations here. Additionally, they’re responsible for the maintenance of the vehicles after they are used to service aircraft. The fuels laboratory is responsible for ensuring that the products are up to specifications, clean, dry, with the right levels of additives, and that the equipment is up to standards.

“My favorite part of being here is knowing that I am making a difference because I'm one of the last lines of defense against contaminated fuel,” said Staff Sgt. Zachary Johnson, 332d ELRS fuels lab non-commissioned officer in charge. “By running quality assurance measures on the fuel that comes in and out, I'm making sure that the airplane or other machine is not getting bad fuel. It’d be tough without us: gas powers everything.”

*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the U.S. Air Forces Central website.*
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of 

establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

ROY E. DISNEY GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Westville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

CHANDRA K. HEIN

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

ROY E. DISNEY, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 27A02-1403-CR-178

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE GRANT CIRCUIT COURT

The Honorable Mark E. Spitzer, Judge

Cause No. 27C01-1305-FC-32

December 2, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BAKER, Judge 
2

Roy Disney appeals the trial court’s denial of his “Verified Order to be Released 

Without Parole After Completed Term of Imprisonment.” Appellant’s Br. p. 1. Because 

Disney’s violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure prevent us from reaching the 

merits of his appeal, we find that he has waived the issues raised and affirm the judgment 

of the trial court.

On October 1, 2013, Disney pleaded guilty to Operating a Motor Vehicle While 

Privileges are Forfeited for Life,1 a class C felony, as well as a violation of his probation. 

Disney was sentenced to an aggregate term of six years. On March 5, 2014, Disney filed 

his request to be released without parole after his completed term of imprisonment and 

the trial court denied this motion on March 7, 2014. Disney now appeals.

On appeal, Disney has committed numerous violations of the Indiana Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. Perhaps most importantly, Disney has failed to include the trial 

court’s order or the motion at issue in his appendix—a violation of Appellate Rule

50(B).

2

 As Disney also fails to provide a description of the contents of this motion in his 

brief, we are unable to ascertain the nature of the argument he made before the trial court. 

While we often tolerate minor infractions of the appellate rules so that we may decide 

appeals on their merits, Disney’s noncompliance prevents us from reaching the merits of 

 

1

Ind. Code § 9-30-10-17. 

2 Disney has failed to comply with numerous other appellate rules, including Rule 46(A)(8)(a) regarding 

appellant’s briefs, which provides that “[t]he argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on 

the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning.” 
3

this appeal. Ramsey v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t. of Workforce Dev., 789 N.E.2d 486, 

490 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). He has, therefore, waived the issue.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

VAIDIK, C.J., and RILEY, J., concur.
#### People v Nesbit

1st Dept: 143 AD3d 501

denied*
#### Frazer Tp. v. Frazer Tp. Police Ass’n

12/01/2015

323 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 118 A.3d 494
No. 10-5469.

#### Toromi Washington, Petitioner v. Derral G. Adams, Warden.

562 U.S. 923, 131 S. Ct. 304,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7315.

178 L. Ed. 2d 198,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10M27.

#### Eddie Cotto, Petitioner v. Sergeant Bones, et al.

562 U.S. 819, 131 S. Ct. 376,

178 L. Ed. 2d 13,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6193.

October 4, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

In the Matter of 

ANNE POPE CATALINE

 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 2282 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 

Board File No. C1-16-323 

(Supreme Court of New Jersey, 

D-31 September Term 2015) 

Attorney Registration No. 72535

(Out of State) 

 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

 AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2016, having failed to reply to this Court’s 

directive of July 22, 2016, to provide reasons against the imposition of reciprocal 

discipline, Anne Pope Cataline is disbarred from the practice of law in this 

Commonwealth. She shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.
No. 12-8571.

#### Ward *v.*Lafler, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Moon v. Dauphin County

05/03/2016

23 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 129 A.3d 16
---

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Mr. David Reeves 
  Mineral Transport Solution (Pty) Ltd 
  PO Box 3987 Dainfern
  Johannesburg, South Africa

|To:              US
      Securities and Exchange Commission                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                  
|Re:              Anooraq
      Resources Corporation Form on 20F for the Fiscal year ended December 31,
      2004

I, David Reeves, MAusIMM., hereby certify that I have read the disclosure in connection with the Boikgantsho Joint Venture Property contained in the subject 20F and hereby consent to the reference to myself as a named expert in the written
disclosure in the Form 20F of Anooraq Resources Corporation.

Dated this 15 day of June, 2005.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cecily McMillan, Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 317]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered May 19, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of three months, concurrent with five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly mitigated any error in denying defendant’s request for a missing witness charge as to an unidentified police officer with whom defendant interacted immediately before the incident by allowing defense counsel to raise the argument extensively in summation.

When defendant sought to question the injured police officer *592about alleged prior acts of misconduct, the court, which had legitimate concerns about whether the allegations were raised in good faith, providently exercised its discretion when it ordered a preliminary inquiry outside the presence of the jury concerning these allegations. Defendant effectively abandoned the request *(see People v Graves,*85 NY2d 1024, 1027 [1995]) by declining to take this opportunity, which, based on information elicited in such an inquiry, could have resulted in a more favorable ruling regarding the prospective scope of cross-examination. The record does not support defendant’s assertion that the court made a final ruling precluding inquiry into these matters.

We have considered defendant’s other challenges to the court’s evidentiary rulings and find them unavailing.

By failing to object, or by making general objections, defendant failed to preserve any of her challenges to the People’s summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. “The word ‘objection’ alone [is] insufficient to preserve [an] issue” for review as a question of law *(People v Tevaha,*84 NY2d 879, 881 [1994]). As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]). Any improprieties in the challenged remarks were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114 [1st Dept 1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

Moreover, any errors involving the summation, or any of the other issues on appeal, were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]), including a videotape of the incident, which supported the victim’s rather than defendant’s account.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.
#### Livingston v Better Med. Health, P.C.

2d Dept: 149 AD3d 1061

denied
#### Oparaji, Matter of, v Books & Rattles

3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1165

denied
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 114 (Monday, June 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15837]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1216-DR]


Kentucky; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky, (FEMA-1216-DR), dated April 29, 1998, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky, is hereby amended to include following area 
among those determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of April 29, 1998:

    The county of Letcher for Individual Assistance (already 
designated for Public Assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
Laurance W. Zensinger,
Division Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 98-15837 Filed 6-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
No. 10-5065.

#### Rudy Stanko, Petitioner v. Ricardo Rios, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 805, 131 S. Ct. 236,

178 L. Ed. 2d 7,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7692.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Same case below, 366 Fed. Appx. 706.
No. 09-11499.

#### Mac David Cochran, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 884, 131 S. Ct. 210,

178 L. Ed. 2d 126,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6776.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, denied.
No. 09-1238.

#### Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Petitioners v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, et al.

562 U.S. 801, 131 S. Ct. 372,

178 L. Ed. 2d 1,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6478.

October 4, 2010.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S. Ct. 104, 95 L. Ed. 36 (1950).
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 Annual Report of Constar
International Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William S. Rymer, Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(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.



|                     |  |     |  |                                                                      
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/    WILLIAM S.
RYMER                                              
|                     |  |     |  | William S. Rymer Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 09-11283.

#### Richard Donnell Rudisill, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 871, 131 S. Ct. 172,

178 L. Ed. 2d 103,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6934.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 358 Fed. Appx. 421.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15925]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[AK-020-5101-00-L012; FF091732]


Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
for the Golden Valley Electric Association Northern Intertie Project 
(EIS #97-47); Alaska

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management; Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Golden Valley Electric Association has applied to the Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) for a Right-of-Way to construct, operate, and 
maintain a 230 kV transmission line from Healy, Alaska, to Fairbanks, 
Alaska. Pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, as 
amended, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and 
40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, the BLM has prepared an EIS. The public comment 
period on the Draft EIS ended on March 5, 1998. Notice is hereby given 
on the availability of the Final EIS for public review and comment. 
Copies of the Final EIS are available by mail by contacting the BLM 
Northern Field Office, 1150 University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska, 
99709, or by calling (907) 474-2339.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted or postmarked no later than 
July 13, 1998, or 30 days after publication in the Federal Register of 
the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability, whichever 
is later.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Bureau of Land 
Management, Northern Field Office, Attn: Gary Foreman, 1150 University 
Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3899. Comments can also be entered via 
the internet at http://aurora.ak.blm.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gary Foreman, Project Manager, at 1-800-437-7021 or (907) 474-2339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The preferred alternative identified in the 
Draft EIS was the Rex/South Route, Option B. Based on public input 
received during the comment period the preferred alternative was 
changed. the new preferred alternative identified in the Final EIS is 
the Rex/South Route, without option B.
Tom Allen,
State Director, Alaska.
[FR Doc. 98-15925 Filed 6-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-JA-M
#### Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG et al., Respondents, v Morgan Stanley et al., Appellants.

[58 NYS3d 316]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered August 13, 2014, which, to the extent ap*588pealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motions to dismiss with regard to certain fraud claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In connection with their purchase of about $694 million in residential mortgage-backed certificates, plaintiffs allege that defendants provided them offering materials containing false and misleading statements regarding the underlying mortgage loans. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the offering materials understated the loan-to-value ratios and overstated owner- occupancy rates, and misrepresented that exceptions to the originators’ underwriting guidelines would be permitted only on a case-by-case basis, when, in fact, there were widespread deviations from the guidelines. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ misrepresentations caused them to make a far riskier investment than they intended, and that they suffered considerable investment losses as a direct result.

The motion court properly declined to dismiss the fraud claims as barred by the German statute of limitations, given the incomplete record as to the applicable German legal standards *(see HSH Nordbank AG v Barclays Bank PLC,*42 Misc 3d 1231 [A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50290[U], *9 [Sup Ct, NY County 2014]; *see generally Benn v Benn,*82 AD3d 548, 548 [1st Dept 2011]).

Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged each element of fraud *(IKB Intl. S.A. v Morgan Stanley,*142 AD3d 447 [1st Dept 2016]; *Basis Yield Alpha Fund Master v Morgan Stanley,*136 AD3d 136 [1st Dept 2015]).

We considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Richter, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 4.1    
    


 
 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS    
    


We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form F-8 of our report dated February 27, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Hydrogenics Corporation as at December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the consolidated statements of operations and deficit and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2003. 


/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 


November 30,
2004

Toronto, Ontario 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
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 Annual Report of Micrus Endovascular Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
the undersigned 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 my
knowledge:





(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.








By:
                /s/
      JOHN T. KILCOYNEJohn
      T. KilcoyneChairman
      and Chief Executive Officer











By:
                /s/
      GORDON T. SANGSTERGordon
      T. SangsterChief
      Financial Officer








Date:
June 10, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             318
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      377
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       1057
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3076
<PP&E>                                            4775
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    4645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1568
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      4645
<SALES>                                           3828
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3828
<CGS>                                             2834
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      929
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 219
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (154)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        62
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (92)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    100
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         7
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>