alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p.1 

OAR Box 1796 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

70) VI-C-01 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:38 PM Sheet 70 of 107 
P.2 

A-90-37 

VI-C-01 

This Document has been moved to IV-C-01 at the request of the Project 

Officer. It was incorrectly categorized originally.
Docket No 61755 Appellant filed his petition on June 8, 2012, more than one year after entry of the judgment of conviction on May 4, 2011. 2 Thus, appellant's petition was untimely filed and procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice.
See NRS 34.726(1).

To overcome the procedural bar, appellant claimed that he does not fully understand English, does not fully understand the law, and relied on a fellow inmate to prepare this petition. The underlying claims in this petition are similar to claims raised in a motion for modification of sentence filed in the district court on October 5, 2011, and therefore, appellant failed to demonstrate that an impediment external to the defense prevented him from raising the claims in a timely petition. Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). In addition, that appellant relied on a fellow inmate for legal work and that English is not his first language did not demonstrate good cause. See generally Phelps v. Dir., Nev. Dep't of Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660, 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988) (holding that petitioner's claim of organic brain damage, borderline mental retardation and reliance on assistance of inmate law clerk unschooled in the law did not constitute good cause for the filing of a successive post-conviction petition). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the petition as procedurally barred.

2 No direct appeal was taken.

### Douglas



### 8aiita Docket No. 62000



### Appellant filed a second notice of appeal from the same order that was the subject of Docket No. 61755. The clerk of this court inadvertently docketed an appeal in Docket No. 62000 as a separate matter when appellant filed the second, duplicative notice of appeal. Accordingly, we direct the clerk of this court to administratively close the appeal in Docket No. 62000.

For the foregoing reasons, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED in Docket No. 61755 and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THE APPEAL in Docket No. 62000.

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge Fransisco Alfredo Ramos Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk J.

J.

3
No. 10-5290.

#### Ernesto Garcia, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 913, 131 S. Ct. 271,

178 L. Ed. 2d 179,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6978.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2013274EN.01000402.xml

| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2013 — Jürgen Hein, Hjördis Hein v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-353/13)

2013/C 274/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jürgen Hein, Hjördis Hein

Applicants:

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004? (1)

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the tasks to the third party? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the tasks to the third party?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sean Charles Hernandez, Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 265]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ethan Greenberg, J.), rendered February 4, 2016, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a term of IV2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although we do not find that defendant made a valid waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Powell,*140 AD3d 401 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 1074 [2016]), we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur — Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-09-00 362 -CV

Har ve y Le r oy Sos sa m on , I II, App e lla nt

v. Brad Livi ngston, Direct or of the Texas Depart m ent of Crim inal Ju stice , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-08- 0020 20 , HO NORAB LE STEPH EN YELENO SK Y , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N On September

21, 2009, we notified appellant Ha rvey L eroy Sossamon, I I Ithat the
a pp e lla te re c or d in

thi s c a se did

no t a pp e a r t o c on ta in a

fi na l or ot

he rw ise a pp e a la ble or de r. Th is Court’s jurisdiction is l imi te d to the re view of f

inal judgme nts and ce rtain interlocutor y order s signe d b y the trial cour

t. See T e x. C i v . P r a c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § § 5 1
. 0 1 2 , . 0 1 4 ( W e s t20 08 ); se e als o Lehmann v. Har- Con Corp. , 39 S.W .3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Sossamon’s response to this notice fa ils to d e mon str a te that a fi na l or oth e rw ise a

pp e a la ble ord er has b e e n s ig ne d b y the tr ia l c ou rt
. Sossamon seeks to appea l from the trial c ourt’s orde r p ermit ting him to take a pre- suit deposition and denying a motion for a protec tive order filed by the individual to be deposed. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 202.1. Specifically , So s s am o n wishes to appea l from the following lang uag e in the orde r: “Howe ver, Plaintiff [S ossamon] must f ollow the Texas Rules of Civil Procedur e, including the rules
re g a rd ingc os ts a

nd fe e s. ” A tr ia l c ou rt ’s or de r s ta tin g that th e a pp lic a ble pr oc e dura l r

ule s sh a ll a

pp ly2

to a pre- suit de position is not a n appea lable interloc utory order
. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. C ode Ann. § 51.014. No a

pp e a la ble jud g me nt or or de r ap pe a rs in the re c or d. Ac c or din g ly , th e a pp e a l is dismiss ed for

want of jurisdiction.

________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Waldrop and He nson Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Oc tober 15, 2009
No. 12-8844.

#### Dearmas-Valdes *v.*Crews, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2certification pursuant to 18 u.s.c. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of thesarbanes-oxley act of 2002The undersigned officer of Veridien Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies to my knowledgethat the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the on date hereof, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification isprovided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be part of the Report or “filed” for anypurpose whatsoever.       Date: November 14, 2006 Name:           /s/ Russell Van Zandt                      Russell Van Zandt    Title: Chief Financial Officer  
24
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Richards, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 738]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McKay, J.), rendered March 11, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Kron, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. While lineup participants should have the same general physical characteristics as those of the suspect, there is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by individuals nearly identical in appearance *(see People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], *cert denied*498 US 833 [1990]). Any minor variations between the weight, age, or features of the participants and those of the defendant in this case did not render the lineup impermissibly suggestive or conducive to irreparable mistaken identification *(see People v*
      *884
      *Shaw,*251 AD2d 686 [1998]). Any significant discrepancies in height were eliminated since the participants in the lineup were seated *(see People v Bolt,*295 AD2d 357, 358 [2002]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
# DLA Logistics Operations makes first visit to DLA Aviation Detachment Kadena, Japan

/ Published Oct. 30, 2023
RICHMOND, Va., 
                Navy Rear Admiral Joseph (Doug) Noble, director of Defense Logistics Agency’s Logistics Operations headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, presents a coin to Customer Support Specialist Annmarie Meats, at a warehouse at DLA Aviation Detachment Kadena, Okinawa, Japan. Meats was recognized Oct. 25, 2023, for her outstanding support to the Support Center Pacific mission. (Photo by Air Force Capt. Andrew Sherk)                            DLA Logistics Operations makes first visit to DLA Aviation Detachment Kadena, Japan                            Navy Rear Admiral Joseph (Doug) Noble, director of Defense Logistics Agency’s Logistics Operations headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, presents a coin to Customer Support Specialist Annmarie Meats, at a warehouse at DLA Aviation Detachment Kadena, Okinawa, Japan. Meats was recognized Oct. 25, 2023, for her outstanding support to the Support Center Pacific mission. (Photo by Air Force Capt. Andrew Sherk)            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Air Force Capt. Andrew SherkVIRIN: 231025-D-D0441-1003 Navy Rear Adm. Joseph “Doug” Noble, director of Defense Logistics Agency Logistics Operations, also known as J3, headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, visited DLA Aviation Detachment Kadena in Okinawa, Japan on October 25, 2023.

This was Noble’s first visit to Kadena, which was established less than a year ago as part of DLA Aviation at Ogden as a strategic depot level repair activity located on Kadena Air Base in Japan.

“During the visit Noble had an opportunity to engage with Kadena team members and tour key maintenance, storage, and distribution facilities; as well as receive briefings on current and future priorities from both DLA Aviation Detachment Kadena and Support Center Pacific leadership,” said Air Force Col. Ernest Cage, commander of DLA Aviation at Ogden. “Kadena is DLA Aviation’s furthest and only overseas industrial support activity and provides end-to-end supply chain support to Air Force Material Command’s Support Center Pacific.”

Cage said, "DLA Aviation Detachment Kadena represents the agency’s continued focus on support to the customer at the forward edge, as the Department of Defense postures to deter peer-to-peer competition through enhanced readiness and regional security cooperation."
Order entered January 18 , 2017

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 00832

- CR

NATHANIEL ALEXANDER CALDWELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380

- 81946

- 2015



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 11, 2017 third motion for an extension of time to

file his brief. We GRANT a ppellant’s motion and ORDER the brief received on January 11,

2017 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
# Employee Spotlight: Takerra Haugen

/ Published Feb. 1, 2023
RICHMOND, Va., 
*Employee spotlight regularly features outstanding non-supervisory personnel from throughout the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and other DLA employees on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. Organizational directors may submit names of employees they wish to feature in this column to DLA Aviation Public Affairs.*

**Name:** Takerra Haugen

**Organization/Directorate/Division**: DLA Aviation’s Supplier Operations Commodities Directorate’s Post-Award Division (Supplier Facing)

**How long have you worked for DLA**: 2 years

**What is your job title**: I’m a contract specialist

**Describe your job in a sentence or two.** As a post-award contract specialist, I engage and collaborate with suppliers and internal personnel to assist with getting material to the warfighters. This is done by tackling delinquencies, managing contracts by resolving various types of payment issues and discrepancies, and administering modifications on purchase orders and contracts to fulfill and support the warfighters needs.

**What do you like most about your job and why?** As a prior educator, it’s ingrained in me to learn and teach new skills. What I like most about my job is that I am still able to apply these actions to my everyday functions as a contract specialist. When I encounter a new issue or unknown process, I dive into the research and utilize what I have learned to work toward finding a solution. In turn, I am then able to help other administrators by sharing the knowledge I’ve acquired to assist with similar issues.

**What is your fondest memory of working for DLA Aviation?** My fondest memory so far was attending our division tailgate party! This was my first DLA Aviation event I attended that had a great atmosphere with music, food, and games. When I joined DLA, it was through the thick of COVID where I primarily corresponded with my peers via email and Microsoft Teams. At the tailgate party, it was wonderful to meet other teammates and coworkers in person and see some familiar faces as well.

**What are your best practices for achieving goals or accomplishing tasks?****Contracting is a very demanding field, so I find it best to be prepared as much as you can. Organizing my tasks out for the day/week and prioritizing what actions need immediate attention helps me to be proactive in processing my workload timely and efficiently.**

**Professionally, where do you see yourself five years from now?**In five years, I see myself either in a training capacity helping new hires learn the world of post award and its functions or in a supervisory role.

**What are some of your passions outside of work?** My passions outside work include raising my loving, adventurous daughter; spending time with friends and family; traveling; playing volleyball, and baking and decorating cookies.
No. 10-124.

#### Michael Tully, Petitioner v. Paul Barada, et al.

562 U.S. 894, 131 S. Ct. 299,

178 L. Ed. 2d 144,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6289.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 599 F.3d 591.
# DLA Troop Support Subsistence hosts town hall

/ Published Feb. 14, 2023
PHILADELPHIA, 
Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Subsistence supply chain hosted a town hall on 14 February in Philadelphia. The Subsistence supply chain provides food support for the military all over the world. From individually packaged meals in a soldier's ruck sack, to a ship's galley and to full-service dining facilities on military installations, Subsistence gets that food there. Subsistence also supports other non-Department of Defense activities, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the State Department, Veterans’ Homes and more.
# Distribution’s Current Operations Director receives Exceptional Civilian Service Award in honor of nearly 40 years of service

/ Published April 22, 2019
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Joseph D. Cassel, Jr., director of DLA Distribution Current Operations, retired from federal service March 28, after nearly 40 years of military and federal service.

During a retirement ceremony in his honor, Distribution Commanding Officer Navy Rear Adm. Kevin M. Jones and Deputy Commander Twila C. Gonzales, Senior Executive Service, applauded Cassel’s professional accomplishments, both civilian and military. Additionally, they presented him with several awards, including the DLA Exceptional Civilian Service Award.

“During his years as [Current Operations] director, Joe expertly managed more than 150 employees and a global network of 24 distribution centers, which employed more than 7,000 people – to include members from all four service branches,” said Gonzales.

She also praised Cassel’s leadership during Distribution’s efforts to increase its total volume in the Scheduled Truck program. “Joe’s push for the use of the Scheduled Truck program has resulted in enormous savings to the customer by optimizing redundant routes.”

In support of Distribution’s Whole of Government customer Federal Emergency Management Agency, Cassel executed a monumental relief effort to aid victims of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria in 2017.  

Again, during the 2018 hurricane season, Cassel deployed two Expeditionary Teams in response to Hurricane Florence recovery efforts. Expeditionary assets deployed to Fort A. P. Hill, Virginia, and Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, including 37 civilian and 11 military personnel.  

“Under Joe’s guidance, Distribution executed a herculean relief effort in support of the FEMA and the victims of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria and Florence,” Gonzales said.

“Joe’s proven performance in times of great uncertainty and shrinking markets is a true hallmark of his leadership and visionary abilities,” Gonzales added. “His individual efforts and key accomplishments in the Current Operations arena attest to the awesome impact one individual can make in a diverse and challenging environment and he will be sorely missed.”  

Previously, Cassel served as director of Stakeholder Integration Services, DLA Information Operations. There he led more than 1,400 personnel with a budget of approximately $500 million, supporting over 35,000 global information technology customers. He was responsible for numerous key organizations including Document Services, Logistics Information Services and enterprise IT services such as deployed contingency operations and strategic communications. He also served as a liaison to the Defense Information Systems Agency. 

During the ceremony, Cassel reminisced on time served with DLA and Distribution. “It takes decades to make a powerhouse like Distribution. It has been an honor and pleasure to be part of this organization.”
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK, FSB,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

AND

STEPHEN ROSENBAUM, FRANK E. WILLIAMS, 

JR., COMPASS POINT PARTNERS LLC, AND LEGAL 

ALPHA LLC, on behalf of themselves and on behalf 

of all other similarly situated holders of Litigation 

Tracking Warrants of Dime Bancorp,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-5005

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 95-CV-0039, Judge Lawrence J. Block.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 
 

EDWIN L. FOUNTAIN, Jones Day, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were 

GREGORY A. CASTANIAS and ANTHONY J. DICK. 

 

PAUL A. TRAINA, Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, of Los 

Angeles, California, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Of 

counsel was JARED WESLEY BEIKE. 

JOHN J. TODOR, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department 

of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendantappellee. With him on the brief were JOYCE R. BRANDA, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, 

Director, and SCOTT D. AUSTIN, Assistant Director.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, BRYSON, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

October 16, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk