alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# ‘Piggybacking’ can open doors to security problems

/ Published Oct. 17, 2023
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Holding a door open for the person behind you may seem like the polite thing to do, but it can lead to a serious security breach at the workplace.

The Defense Department calls this practice piggybacking and defines it as an unauthorized person tagging along with an authorized person to enter a facility, restricted area, checkpoint or other controlled environment.

Piggybacking happens when someone holds a door open for a second person who doesn’t scan a common access card or enter a personal identification number to gain access. 

“You're allowing someone in and you're assuming that person belongs in that location, but you should never assume,” said Mark Banks, law enforcement program manager for the Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management’s Security and Emergency Services.

Piggybacking can be unintentional and unnoticed. If a door is closing, an unauthorized person can catch it before it closes and get inside an area where they shouldn’t be, Banks said.

The best practice is not to hold the door open for anyone trailing behind and to make sure the door latches shut behind you, Banks said.

“It goes against what we were raised to do to be kind, but unfortunately in today’s world, it is safer for everyone to be security conscious rather than kind,” Banks said.

Instead, make sure each individual scans their own CAC or enters their own PIN to access buildings, workspace, rooms, controlled areas or restricted areas.

In general, Banks said employees should be vigilant and aware of their surroundings, or in other words, maintain security awareness.

If someone is found at a DLA location without a CAC or visitor’s pass and an escort, Banks said not to risk a confrontation and report the person to local police as quickly as possible with their location description.

“The best thing to do is to be safe and be smart,” Banks said.
#### In the Matter of Edward A. O’Brien, III, Appellant, v Teresa R. O’Brien, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 905]

— Appeal from an order of Family Court, Oswego County (Roman, J.), entered October 9, 2002, which, inter alia, granted respondent’s cross petition to relocate with the child to Lake Hoptacong, New Jersey.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Matter of Cherilyn P.,*192 AD2d 1084 [1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 652 [1993]; see *also*CPLR 5511). Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ NISSIM CORP., Appellant,

v. Teresa Stanek Rea , ACTING DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Appellee,

AND TIME WARNER, IN C., WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT, INC., WARNER HOME VIDEO, AND NEW LINE HOME ENTERT AINMENT, Appellees.

__________________________
2012

- 1409

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Int erferences in R eexamination No. 95/000,312

.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ Case: 12-1409 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 08/02/2013NISSIM CORP

. v. REA 2

Before R ADER , Chief Judge B RYSON , and W ALLACH , Ci r cuit Judges

. B RYSON , Circuit Judge

. O R D E R

The parties jointly move to remand this appeal to th e Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) due to se t tlement. The parties state that they have settled the case and move to remand so that the Board can consider a petition to terminate the underlying reexamination

. We grant the motion. In doi ng so, however, we take no position as to whether the Board should grant the pet ition. Upon consideration thereof, It is ordered that : The motion to remand is granted.

F OR THE C OURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 2, 2013

s25 Case: 12-1409 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 08/02/2013
##### 



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 Covansys Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Rajendra B. Vattikuti, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President 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. /s/ Rajendra B. Vattikuti Rajendra B. Vattikuti
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
March 8, 2006
Exhibit 12

QWEST CORPORATION        CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES        (UNAUDITED)

Nine Months
Ended
September 30,

Years Ended December 31,2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004Income from continuing operations before income taxes, discontinued operations and cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles

$
1,513

$
2,267

$
2,440

$
1,882

$
1,628

$
1,871Add: estimated fixed charges


525


671


682


700


700


686Add: estimated amortization of capitalized interest


8


12


10


10


12


12Less: interest capitalized


(7
)

(14
)

(12
)

(12
)

(10
)

(12
)Total earnings available for fixed charges

$
2,039

$
2,936

$
3,120

$
2,580

$
2,330

$
2,557Estimate of interest factor on rentals

$
47

$
68

$
62

$
72

$
82

$
75Interest expense, including amortization of premiums, discounts and debt issuance costs(1)


471


589


608


616


608


599Interest capitalized


7


14


12


12


10


12Total fixed charges

$
525

$
671

$
682

$
700

$
700

$
686Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


3.9


4.4


4.6


3.7


3.3


3.7


(1)Interest
expense includes only interest related to long-term borrowings and capital lease obligations.


---



QuickLinks
No. 10-6114.

#### Marvin Earl Daniels, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 945, 131 S. Ct. 372,

178 L. Ed. 2d 239,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7758.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 303.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-36933, No. 333-42986, No. 333-61717, and No. 333-82398)
pertaining to the 1996 Equity Compensation Plan and Stock Purchase Plan of
Health Grades, Inc. of our report dated February 8, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Health Grades, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2001, included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.

                                                     /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                     ---------------------
                                                         Ernst & Young LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 26, 2004
#### Horn v Horn

2d Dept: 145 AD3d 666

denied
#### Trevor McDaniel, Appellant, v Codi Transport, Ltd., et al., Respondents.

[50 NYS3d 286]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered November 14, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, with leave to renew after the completion of discovery, denied plaintiff’s motion to quash a nonparty subpoena, and, in effect, granted defendants’ cross motion to compel discovery, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiff’s motions granted, and defendants’ cross motion denied.

In support of his motion for partial summary judgment, plaintiff, a driver for the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), submitted an affidavit averring that his bus was stopped in the right lane at an intersection next to defendants’ box truck, when defendant driver made a right turn, across plaintiff’s lane of traffic. The rear of the truck struck the front corner of the bus, which remained stopped and in its own lane of travel. Defendant driver left the scene of the accident. Accordingly, plaintiff met his prima facie burden by demonstrating that defendant driver entered plaintiff’s lane of traffic in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 (a), and that plaintiff did not contribute to the accident *(see Steigelman v Transervice Lease Corp.,*145 AD3d 439, 439 [1st Dept 2016]). In opposition, defendants submitted no evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the accident, and their “arguments about how plaintiff driver may have contributed to the accident, or been able to *596avoid it, are speculative,” and therefore insufficient to raise an issue of fact (Steigelman, 145 AD3d at 440).

Denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion as premature is unwarranted, as defendants have not identified any information in the exclusive control of plaintiff that could raise a material issue of fact *(see*CPLR 3212 [f]; *Erkan v McDonald’s Corp.,*146 AD3d 466, 467 [1st Dept 2017]). Defendants’ speculation that plaintiff or the subpoenaed nonparty witness, a safety and training employee of the NYCTA, may provide information about NYCTA policies and procedures that could be relevant is insufficient, since such internal policies do not provide the standard of care in a negligence case (see *Asantewaa v City of New York,*90 AD3d 537, 538 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Kahn, JJ.
EXHIBIT
10.1


 


May 31, 2006


 


InFocus Corporation

27700 SW Parkway

Wilsonville, OR 97070

Attn:  Roger Rowe, CFO


 


Re:                               Second Extension of Delivery of Annual
Financial Statements


 


Mr. Roger Rowe:


 


Reference is hereby made to (a) that certain Credit
Agreement, dated as of October 25, 2004 (as amended to date, the “Credit
Agreement”), by and among InFocus Corporation, an Oregon corporation (“Borrower”),
the lenders from time to time signatory to the Credit Agreement (the “Lenders”)
and Wells Fargo Foothill, Inc., a California corporation, in its capacity as
agent for the Lenders and Bank Product Providers (in such capacity, “Agent”)
and (b) that certain extension letter of delivery of annual financial
statements, dated March 8, 2006, issued by Agent to Borrower (the “First
Extension Letter”). All capitalized terms used in this letter without
definition shall have the meanings assigned thereto in the Credit Agreement.


 


Pursuant to the terms of items (f) and (h) of Schedule
5.3 to the Credit Agreement and the First Extension Letter, Borrower is to
deliver to Agent its annual audited financial statements and a Compliance
Certificate with respect thereto, all as more fully described in said Schedule
5.3, on or before May 31, 2006. Borrower has informed Agent that it is unable
to deliver the annual audited financial statements for its fiscal year ending
December 31, 2005 and accompanying Compliance Certificate (the “2005
Financial Statements”) within such time frame and has requested that Agent
grant an extension thereof. Agent hereby agrees that an Event of Default shall
not be deemed to have occurred as a result of Borrower’s failure to deliver the
2005 Financial Statements on or prior to May 31, 2006 so long as the 2005
Financial Statements is delivered to Agent on or prior to July 7, 2006 and
otherwise in accordance with Schedule 5.3 of the Credit Agreement; provided,
however, (i) any other Default or Event of Default arising from or
disclosed by the delivery to Agent of the 2005 Financial Statements shall be
deemed to have arisen or disclosed, as the case may be, on March 31, 2006 and
(ii) the extension provided in this letter is conditioned on Borrower providing
Agent, promptly upon its request, with updates as to the status of, and other
information with respect to, all audits and investigations with respect to the
2005 Financial Statements, all in form and content satisfactory to Agent.


 


Except as expressly set forth herein, nothing
contained in this letter shall diminish, prejudice or waive any of Agent’s or
any Lender’s rights and remedies under the Credit Agreement, any other Loan
Document or applicable law, all of which are hereby reserved.


 


This extension letter is a supplement to the Credit
Agreement and a Loan Document.


 


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  WELLS
  FARGO FOOTHILL, INC.,

  
	
   

  	
  a California corporation,

  
	
   

  	
  as Agent and as the sole
  Lender

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Thomas Forbath

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Thomas Forbath

  
	
   

  	
  Vice President
*June 5, 2017*

2017-Ohio-4106.]

2016-1559.

#### State v. Watkins.

Lucas App. No. L-15-1213, 2016-Ohio-5756. On the motion of Tim Dugan to withdraw as counsel for appellee. Motion granted. Counsel granted leave to file an application for appointed counsel fees.
# C_2013260EN.01002101.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 May 2013 — T-Mobile Austria GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission

(Case C-282/13)

2013/C 260/35

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: T-Mobile Austria GmbH

Appellant:

Respondent authority: Telekom-Control-Kommission

Respondent authority:

Interveners: Hutchison 3 G Austria Holdings GmbH, Hutchison 3G Austria GmbH, Orange Austria Telecommunication GmbH, Stubai SCA, Orange Belgium SA, A1 Telekom Austria AG

Interveners:

Additional party: Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technolgie

Additional party:

Question referred

Question referred

Are Articles 4 and 9b of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and Article 5(6) of Directive 2002/20/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) to be interpreted as meaning that they confer on a competitor the status, in a national procedure under Article 5(6) of the Authorisation Directive, of an undertaking which is affected within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

1

(2)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21, amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 37).

2

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 31.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer

I, Steven F. Cohen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mid-State Raceway, Inc.
and Subsidiary;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 14, 2004



/s/ Steven F. Cohen
Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15702]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE & TIME: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:
    Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g.
    Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g, Sec. 438(b), and 
Title 26, U.S.C.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
    Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.

DATE & TIME: Thursday, June 18, 1998 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:
    Correction and Approval of Minutes.
    Audit: 1996 Democratic National Convention Committee, Inc.
    Audit: Chicago's Committee for '96.
    Soft Money: Revised Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Administrative Matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Signed:
Marjorie W. Emmons,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-15702 Filed 6-9-98; 11:36 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
No. 09-9539.

#### Jennia Gwendolyn Morrow, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 842, 131 S. Ct. 68,

178 L. Ed. 2d 48,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5770.

October 4, 2010.

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

*49Same case below, 351 Fed. Appx. 649.
# DLA Energy customer account specialist reflects on serving with his twin

/ Published July 20, 2022

Defense Logistics Agency Energy Customer Account Specialist Terry Poole has an identical twin, Perry.  

The brothers grew up sharing a love for hunting, fishing, and playing football. After high school graduation, they also shared a love for the U.S. Air Force. 

Enlisting together in 1988, the brothers attended basic training at the same time. 

“We were in the same flight at basic, reporting to duty every day in the same uniform with same name and looked exactly like each other,” Terry Poole said. 

The Military Training Instructors had the brothers report for duty in unison, but they had to take turns saying every other word in perfect harmony. Terry, laughing at the memory, said it took a lot of practice but by the end of basic training they had it down pat.

After basic, the brothers attended tech school together, entering the fuels career field and receiving the identical first assignment to England Air Force Base, Louisiana. Again, finding themselves reporting to work each day looking exactly the same. 

Terry said the brothers never had many problems with people telling them apart except for those that didn’t know them very well. 

“I often run in to people that Perry was stationed with at other locations or maybe met while TDY and they swear that I know them,” Terry said laughing. 

Fast forward 20 years, and the brothers found themselves once again serving together at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, in what would be their last assignment before retiring from the Air Force.  

After retirement, they returned to their roots in Southeast Texas, about 100 miles east of Houston. Terry is a customer account specialist for DLA Energy Americas East in Houston and Perry works for Exxon Mobil in Beaumont, Texas. 

Terry said DLA Energy felt like a natural fit for him. 

“I knew a few buddies throughout my career that were working for [Defense Energy Support Center],” he said. “It was the same as what I was doing in the military, so I was familiar with terms, systems being used and the military customers. It was very comfortable, and it was something I enjoyed.”

When asked what he likes most about his job, he said “supporting the warfighter.” 

“It’s what I’ve done my whole life...Moving gas. I couldn’t imagine doing anything else.”

The DLA Energy mission is to enable mission readiness by providing globally resilient energy solutions to the Warfighter and Whole of Government. Learn more about the DLA Energy mission and its global presence on the DLA Energy website. 

If you are interested in a career with DLA Energy or Defense Logistics, learn more about internship opportunities through the Pathways to Career Excellence Program or search for DLA Energy job vacancies on the USAJOBS.gov website.