alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael Brady, Appellant, v Benenson Capital Co. et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[767 NYS2d 787]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated October 24, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendants Benenson Capital Co., Charles Benenson, and Robert H. Arnow to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 insofar as asserted against them and the separate motion of the defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation for the same relief, and denied his cross-motion to compel further disclosure.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Where a party is served with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, it is incumbent upon that party to comply with the notice by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the notice or extend the 90-day period *(see Hayden v Jones,*244 AD2d 316 [1997]; *Rubin v Baglio,*234 AD2d 534 [1996]; *Lopez v Pathmark Supermarket,*229 AD2d 566 [1996]; *Spierto v Pennisi,*223 AD2d 537 [1996]). Once the specified period has expired, the party wishing to avoid dismissal must demonstrate both a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the 90-day notice and the existence of a meritorious cause of action *(see*CPLR 3216 [e]; *Hayden v*
      *383
      *Jones, supra; Turman v Amity OBG Assoc.,*170 AD2d 668 [1991]; *Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp.,*152 AD2d 552 [1989]). Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate either a justifiable excuse for the delay or the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1580]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board Task Force on Submarine of the Future

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Submarine of the 
Future will meet in closed session on February 3, 1998 at TRW, Fairfax, 
Virginia. In order for the Task Force to obtain time sensitive 
classified briefing, critical to the understanding of the issues, this 
meeting is scheduled on short notice.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting the Task 
Force will assess the nation's need for attack submarines in the 21st 
century.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has 
been determined that this DSB Task Force meeting concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly this meeting 
will be closed to the public.

    Dated: January 16, 1998.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 98-1580 Filed 1-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
No. 10-5152.

#### Niles M. Belk, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 906, 131 S. Ct. 250,

178 L. Ed. 2d 166,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7434.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 372.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MONARCH
CEMENT COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,767,258
<SECURITIES>                                 5,494,032
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,608,603
<ALLOWANCES>                                   438,000
<INVENTORY>                                 21,279,656
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            46,545,891
<PP&E>                                     121,125,031
<DEPRECIATION>                              81,076,218
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              94,375,119
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,676,511
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,285,443
<OTHER-SE>                                  62,176,764
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                94,375,119
<SALES>                                     56,645,740
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            56,645,740
<CGS>                                       45,549,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               45,549,323
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,088,936
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,550,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,538,936
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,538,936
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10



</TABLE>
No. 09-1524.

#### In re Gary Victor Dubin, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 826, 131 S. Ct. 180,

178 L. Ed. 2d 259,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7675.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wendell Belle, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 475]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), rendered June 17, 2015, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur — Richter, J.P, Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Daniel Williams, Petitioner, v Donald Venettozzi, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[54 NYS3d 221]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

During the application of restraints to petitioner, a correction officer observed petitioner moving an object in his mouth, prompting a pat frisk. After ordering petitioner to remove the object from his mouth, the correction officer seized two broken pieces of a mirror, with pointed edges, one of which was wrapped in toilet paper. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing a weapon, interfering with an employee and violating movement regulation procedures. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of possessing a weapon, and that determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, related documentation, photograph of the weapon and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(see Matter of Gomez v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision,*147 AD3d 1140, 1141 [2017]; *Matter of Tavarez v Annucci,*134 AD3d 1374, 1375 [2015]). Petitioner’s exculpatory claim that he did not sharpen or alter the broken pieces of glass does not compel a different conclusion *(see*7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]; *Matter of Proctor v Fischer,*107 AD3d 1267, 1267 [2013], *lv denied*22 NY3d 853 [2013]; *cf. Matter of Smart v Fischer,*122 AD3d 1023, 1024 [2014], *lv denied*24 NY3d 916 [2015]). Petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report was the product of collusion and in retaliation for a prior grievance that he had filed pre*1502sented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see e.g. Matter of Girard v Annucci,*141 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2016], *appeal dismissed and lv denied*29 NY3d 929 [2017]). Although it was a lieutenant and not the watch commander who “overs [aw] the deposit” of the contraband on the day in question *(see*Dept of Corr & Community Supervision Directive No. 4910A § III [C] [2] [b] [2016]), the hearing testimony and related documentation establish that the contraband was properly secured in the evidence drop box *(see Matter of McFadden v Prack,*120 AD3d 853, 854 [2014], *lv dismissed*24 NY3d 930 [2014], *lv denied*24 NY3d 908 [2014]). Finally, petitioner has not demonstrated that the determination flowed from any alleged bias against him (see *Matter of Genyard v Annucci,*136 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2016]; *Matter of Proctor v Fischer,*107 AD3d at 1268). To the extent that petitioner’s remaining arguments are properly before us, they have been considered and found to be without merit.

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch, Rose and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
EX 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 North American Gaming and Entertainment
Corporation (the "Company") on Form  10-KSB  for the period ending December 31,
2007 has filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  I,  Xu Wei,  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 to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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.


Name & Title					Date

/s/  Xu Wei
-----------
Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer)				April  15, 2008
159 A.3d 885

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BRIAN J. LAURENZA, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 1, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
# Mobile devices and OPSEC

/ Published April 16, 2019
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
Mobile devices are being introduced into the Department of Defense at an astonishing rate.

The Defense Logistics Agency defines mobile devices as a wireless-enabled portable device. These include but are not limited to iPhones, iPads and tablets. 

                141118-F-WP626-774                            Mobile devices are being introduced into the Department of Defense at an astonishing rate. The Defense Logistics Agency defines mobile devices as a wireless-enabled portable device. These include but are not limited to iPhones, iPads and tablets.  This fast paced integration has caused a paradigm shift to occur within DOD and DLA. Our adversaries target these types of devices because they can process information with the same capabilities as a computer. To combat this, DLA has established policy with the issuance of DLAI 8130.01 Mobile Device Management. The policy covers DLA military, civilian and contractor personnel.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Staff Sgt. Richard LongoriaVIRIN: 141118-F-WP626-774This fast paced integration has caused a paradigm shift to occur within DOD and DLA. Our adversaries target these types of devices because they can process information with the same capabilities as a computer.

To combat this, DLA has established policy with the issuance of DLAI 8130.01 Mobile Device Management. The policy covers DLA military, civilian and contractor personnel.

It prohibits users from processing sensitive information, also known as “For Official Use Only”, Privacy Act Information or critical information, on a mobile device unless the device has been configured to send and receive encrypted information.

This is achieved by enabling the Public Key Infrastructure. Users are advised to process limited amounts of sensitive information and to delete the files when no longer needed.

Information operations accomplishes the PKI requirement through their provisioning process with every iPhone that is issued. During the provisioning process, steps are taken to install customer’s encryption and signing certificates onto the phone using the Defense Information Systems Agency’s Purebred application. This allows DLA iPhone customers to sign and encrypt their messages to protect sensitive and personally identifiable information transmissions just as they would through Outlook on their computers.

From an operations security perspective, mobile devices have the potential to be the largest vulnerability in the average users’ life.

Without proper security settings and general OPSEC considerations, your mobile devices are little more than a well-organized beacon of critical and sensitive information.

Remember cell phones, cordless phones and land lines can all be compromised. Censor what you discuss on an unsecured line. You never know who’s listening!
#### People v Maier

4th Dept: 151 AD3d 1702

denied
# Employee Reflection: J'Lene Wygal

/ Published Feb. 5, 2022

**Describe your job in a sentence or two. What do you do specifically?**

I am the primary point of contact for all visitors, personnel and vehicles entering the facility, including sponsoring incoming trucks onto the base. I assist customers with various turn-in questions and inquiries. I process each truck or customer within DSS and assign RCNs to each. The RCNs are totaled at the end of the day and added to the production report.

**How long have you worked for the federal government, including military service?**

I’ll have been a federal employee for two years in May.

**How long have you worked for DLA Disposition Services?**

Two years in May. 

**What is your favorite memory with DLA Disposition Services?**

Honestly, it’s not exactly a memory, but the way I was welcomed and the people I’ve met. Between DLA employees and various customers, it’s amazing to see the teamwork as we’ve come together. 

**What aspect(s) of your current job gives you the most personal satisfaction and why?**

Knowing I’m helping support the warfighter. Even on a small scale, it makes me feel like I’m doing something good. 

**What is the best piece of advice someone has given you?**

Don’t worry about the things you can’t control. There’s no sense in stressing yourself out over something you’re unable to fix. I’m a worrier by nature, so this is something I work on daily. 

**Where do you see yourself five years from now?**

In five years, my goal is to be a property disposal specialist, or in a leadership position of some level. 

**Tell us something that most people might not know about you?**

I’m very interested in applying for positions overseas. It would be a great career opportunity, along with allowing me the ability to experience other cultures. Both my daughters are adults, so I don’t have to worry about uprooting them from schooling or friends. 

**Who’s your biggest influence?**

My biggest influence is 100% my dad. He started with DLA in 1987 as a packer, then moved on to production control. He finally retired from DLA in 2013 as a division chief with DLA Distribution at Hill AFB. Federal employment gave him a lot of great experiences throughout his career. In a lot of ways, I’ve followed in his footsteps.

**What are some of your passions outside of work?**

Woodworking is my biggest passion. I love to have an idea come to mind, put it on paper and ultimately watch it come to life. It’s a fascinating process that I never get tired of.

**What is your favorite quote?**

*“The top of one mountain is always the bottom of another.”**– Marianne Williamson.* It reminds me to never stop climbing. 

----

DLA Disposition Services is celebrating its 50th Anniversary by reflecting on its mission, culture, and workforce. This series is highlighting leadership and employees throughout the agency, across the globe. Visit the historical page to learn more about the MSC and its history.
# DLA Installation Management Susquehanna emergency services wrap up April PrepareAthon

/ Published April 25, 2023

This may be the last week of April’s PrepareAthon; however, let’s not make it the last week to establish our preparedness. I want to take a moment to thank everyone for thinking about preparedness this month. My challenge to each of you is to sustain and expand these efforts to integrate and test your organizational preparedness.  

Over the last three weeks we discussed severe weather preparedness for tornadoes, thunderstorms, and flooding; knowing your alert and warning resources like mass notification warning systems, or AtHoc, and local resources; and evacuation or shelter-in-place which included HVAC shutdown information.  

This week we focus our attention on developing, training, and executing organizational emergency action plans. Each work center shall establish an EAP which is the foundation for preparedness and provides employees critical information such as:
      - Employee responsibilities – protective actions to take during disasters and emergencies 
      - Supervisor responsibilities – review area EAP with employees twice a year
      - Evacuation routes and muster points
      - Shelter-in-place locations and associated actions
      - Lockdown and run-hide-fight actions
      - Emergency communication center phone numbers for fire, police, and Medical assistance
      - Natural disaster and severe weather-related incidents and actions

Did you know that EAPs must be reviewed twice a year by every individual assigned to the work center? Why not expand this effort and complete an exercise as part of your program? Why not walk the evacuation routes and test your muster point/accountability process? The opportunity is yours, make the most of it. Checking the block will not save lives. Also don’t forget, you are responsible for your visitors as well!  

In addition to the work center, consider planning at home as well. Check out the attached “12 Ways to Prepare” and  Make A Plan | Ready.gov resources at the end of this article for more information.

Contact your local emergency services manager for more ways to prepare for emergencies at work and home.
# DLA Installation Management Susquehanna’s April “PrepareAthon” topic #3: Prepping your Emergency Action Plan 

/ Published April 18, 2022
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
During the month of April, the Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Susquehanna Security & Emergency Services team will provide a new topic each week to assist employees with preparing for disasters and other emergencies.

Last week, we focused on preparedness actions for natural disasters like tornadoes and floods. But, what about other emergencies such as a fire or hazardous material release? It is important that we identify all potential hazards and develop, review and test an Emergency Action Plan to maximize our ability to safely react in those situations. You can be ready if you have a plan!

An EAP is a guide of protective actions that you can take in response to a hazard or threat. The ability to react varies depending on the event and time to prepare. For instance, you may need to safely evacuate a building to your designate rally point or evacuate the installation; however, a situation may arise that requires you to immediately shelter-in-place at a pre-designated location inside your work area/facility.                  During “April Prepareathon,” the Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Susquehanna Security & Emergency Services team will provide a topic to assist employees with preparing for disasters and other emergencies. This week’s topic is Emergency Action Plans. Photo source: Ready.gov.                            DLA Installation Management Susquehanna’s Prepareathon topic #3: Emergency Action Plan                            During “April Prepareathon,” the Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Susquehanna Security & Emergency Services team will provide a topic to assist employees with preparing for disasters and other emergencies. This week’s topic is Emergency Action Plans. Photo source: Ready.gov.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DLA Distribution Public AffairsVIRIN: 210419-D-D0441-1212

Your EAP provides vital contact and reporting information that prepares you for potential hazards such as:

•    Medical emergency•    Fire •    Hazmat/Chemical Spill•    Police/Law Enforcement Emergency •    Bomb Threat •    Terrorist Attack using a chemical agent, biological agent or explosive•    Other hazards requiring an immediate response from first responders 

Federal guidelines require you to review your agency’s EAP twice a year.

For more information on EAPs ask your supervisor, or your local Security and Emergency Services manager or representative.

Additionally, consider creating an EAP for your home.

•    Sign up for local emergency alerts and warnings •    Develop a shelter plan•    Plan evacuation routes •    Create a communication plan •    Build an emergency preparedness kit•    Consider specific needs in your household (medications, dietary needs, pets)

More information about EAPs can be found at www.ready.gov.
#### In the Matter of Angella J. Pusey, Petitioner, v Frederick D.R. Sampson, in his Official Capacity as a Justice of the Supreme Court, County of Queens, Respondent.

[56 NYS3d 873]

*526Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to determine her motion for a default judgment against the defendants in an action entitled *Pusey v Morales,*pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under index No. 7823/15.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

This proceeding has been rendered academic in light of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 6, 2017, which determined the petitioner’s motion.

Eng, P.J., Roman, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00122-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.B.B.

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-2157-CV

Honorable Don Burgess, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order terminating 

appellant’s parental rights is AFFIRMED. No costs of appeal are assessed against appellant. 

SIGNED July 18, 2018.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
No. 10-5614.

#### Alterick Kelly, Petitioner v. New Jersey.

562 U.S. 931, 131 S. Ct. 327,

178 L. Ed. 2d 213,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7596.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, denied.