alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50783

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEJANDRO JAVIER LAZOS-ORTIZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-2317-4

Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alejandro Javier Lazos-Ortiz (Lazos) appeals his convictions for conspiring

to harbor and encourage illegal aliens, aiding and abetting the harboring of

illegal aliens, and aiding and abetting the encouraging of aliens illegally

entering the United States. He asserts that the evidence is insufficient to

support his convictions because, although there may have been some evidence

linking him to some of the alien stash houses discussed at trial, there was no

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50783

2

evidence that he had ties to the stash house raided on October 12, 2006, the date

alleged in the indictment.

Because Lazos failed to move for a judgment of acquittal, we review his

sufficiency argument to determine whether “the record is devoid of evidence

pointing to guilt.” United States v. Delgado, 256 F.3d 264, 274 (5th Cir. 2001).

“The prosecution is not required to prove the exact date [alleged in the

indictment]; it suffices if a date reasonably near is established.” United States

v. Powers, 168 F.3d 741, 746 (5th Cir. 1999). We have reviewed the record and

the arguments of the parties, and we conclude that the record is not devoid of

evidence supporting a conclusion that Lazos engaged in an alien-harboring

conspiracy and harbored and encouraged illegal aliens. See Delgado, 256 F.3d

at 274. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Com. v. Samuel39

03/22/2016

472 WAL (2015)

39

. Justice DONOHUE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 102 A.3d 1001
# DLA Distribution Commander delivers Black History Month message

/ Published Feb. 6, 2023
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
DLA Distribution Teammates,

Throughout the month of February, we recognize Black History Month, and the achievements and impact African Americans have had on the history of the United States. This year’s theme, “Inspiring Change,”  highlights the continued progress that has been made in the long struggle for racial equity and justice. To guide us in recognizing the achievements and impact African Americans have had on the history of our nation, DLA Distribution EEO has created a  Black History Month newsletter.

 The newsletter includes an article on the Greensboro, South Carolina sit-ins that helped ignite a youth-led movement to challenge racial inequality throughout the South. It also features an employee spotlight on Da’Laine Simpson, a DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania employee and AFGE Local 2004 President.  

I, along with Mr. Knight, thank you and your families for all you do to support the organization, our Warfighters, and our great Nation.
No. 10-5311.

#### Robert James Spears, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 914, 131 S. Ct. 275,

178 L. Ed. 2d 181,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7042.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# DLA makes Navy last-minute resupply possible after Chinese balloon strike down 

/ Published Feb. 13, 2023
PHILADELPHIA
The Defense Logistics Agency provided quick-turn subsistence support to the USS Carter Hall during their recovery mission of the Chinese high-altitude surveillance balloon shot down off the coast of Myrtle Beach, SC on February 4, 2023. 

“Our subsistence team worked very close with our mission partners at Naval Supply Systems Command to support this short-fused requirement for Carter Hall,” Capt. Timothy Griffin, DLA Troop Support Subsistence director said. “The collaboration and teamwork we had with Navy throughout this evolution was impressive to see and it speaks volumes about what we can accomplish as a team.” 

The Subsistence team received the requirement for food to support the sailors on Tuesday, February 7.  

“We would need proteins, dry eggs, and fresh food & vegetables to increase station time,” said Lt Cole Morris, Supply Officer with USS Carter Hall. 

By Wednesday, DLA Troop Support and its prime vendor U.S. Foods were able to confirm the ability to support a Thursday delivery of essential orders with the coordination of Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Jacksonville. 

“Excellent teamwork by all,” Rear Adm. Peter Stamatopoulos, Naval Supply Systems Command/Chief of Supply Corps commander wrote in an email. “I know coordinating all this short notice is not easy by any stretch of the imagination. Well done.”
No. 09-10514.

#### Darnel D. Walker, Petitioner v. James A. Yates, Warden.

562 U.S. 845, 131 S. Ct. 85,

178 L. Ed. 2d 54,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5792,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 12-6621.

#### Alonzo *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
##### 



Covansys (Mauritius) Limited
    
    MauritiusCBSI Financial Services Corporation
    
    MichiganCovansys Luxembourg
    
    LuxembourgCovansys (India) Private Limited
    
    IndiaCovansys Belgium N.V.
    
    BelgiumCovansys Canada, Inc.
    
    CanadaE-Business Solutions.com, Inc.
    
    DelawareCovansys (Asia
Pacific) Pte Ltd
    
    SingaporeCovansys Deutschland GmbH
    
    GermanyCovansys Netherlands B.V.
    
    NetherlandsCovansys UK Limited
    
    UKCovansys S.r.l.
    
    ItalyCovansys S.L.
    
    SpainPDA Software
Services, Inc.
    
    DelawareOZ Acquisition Corporation
    
    MichiganClaremont Retirement Technologies, Inc.
    
    OhioConvansys Consulting Services Corporation
    
    MichiganSCS Acquisition Corporation
    
    MichiganFortune Infotech Limited
    
    IndiaTechnology Service Partners, Inc.
    
    FloridaCovansys
Software Technology (Shanghai) Company Ltd.
    
    China
**TKP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0724 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. JAY LE CLEVELAND ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including February 6 , 2024 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court January 4 2024

01/04/2024
± August 2008

0 1 2 4

Miles

Continuous Seagrass Habitats

Discontinuous Seagrass Habitat

St. Joseph Bay Aquatic Preserve

Seagrass Habitat of St. Joseph Bay
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


         <ARTICLE>                     5
         <LEGEND>
     Financial  Data Schedule for 10KSB for the period ended August 31, 1997 for
Mega Holding Corp.
         </LEGEND>
       


         <S>                                            <C>
         <PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
         <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               AUG-31-1997
         <PERIOD-START>                                  SEP-1-1996
         <PERIOD-END>                                    AUG-31-1997
         <CASH>                                           15,060
         <SECURITIES>                                     35,052
         <RECEIVABLES>                                   335,739
         <ALLOWANCES>                                          0
         <INVENTORY>                                           0
         <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                196,306
         <PP&E>                                           66,664
         <DEPRECIATION>                                   39,192
         <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  413,323
         <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5,188
         <BONDS>                                               0
         <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
         <PREFERRED>                                           0
         <COMMON>                                         36,150
         <OTHER-SE>                                      369,752
         <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    413,323
         <SALES>                                         200,203
         <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                213,008
         <CGS>                                            96,794
         <TOTAL-COSTS>                                   380,674
         <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 41,127
         <LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
         <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
         <INCOME-PRETAX>                                (208,793)
         <INCOME-TAX>                                    (70,990)
         <INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (208,793)
         <DISCONTINUED>                                        0
         <EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
         <CHANGES>                                             0
         <NET-INCOME>                                   (137,803)
         <EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (.04
         <EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.04)



        

</TABLE>
No. 10-5157.

#### Charles Odom, Petitioner v. North Dakota.

562 U.S. 906, 131 S. Ct. 251,

178 L. Ed. 2d 166,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6844.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Dakota denied.

Same case below, 780 N.W.2d 666.
# Leadership Working Group Forum reminds supervisors “why” all job rolls are important

/ Published Sept. 29, 2022
Richmond, Va., 
The Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Leadership Working Group held its first in-person forum since 2020, during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Sep. 20 in the Frank B. Lotts Conference Center on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. The event was also available via web stream and dial in for supervisors whose offices are in regions outside of Virginia.

The guest speaker for the forum was Mike Mason, a former Marine Corps officer, Fortune 100 executive, FBI agent and bus driver for Chesterfield County Public Schools. Mason gave a presentation titled “Never a Tumbleweed,” which reminded supervisors at various levels of the critical work they do to support the warfighter and why it is important to constantly reinvigorate and reinvent yourself.

“Always remember your ‘why,’” Mason said, citing that oftentimes, individuals forget “why” they perform their work because they get caught up in day-to-day tasks.

Mason also touched on having a positive, self- attitude as the “secret sauce” to being happy at work, which includes feeling and knowing that your work matters, striving to perform your work role to the best of your ability, not being bothered by what others think of your specific job title and laughing daily.

He also shared tools for success including having mentors, periodically recalibrating and reinvigorating your thoughts and actions, using our own creativity and innovative spirit and having the self-courage to succeed – no matter what job you have.

He ended his presentation encouraging all supervisors and employees to never stop evolving.

Active since 2014, the DLA Aviation Leadership Working Group provides a peer network for all supervisors in the organization by hosting monthly supervisory meetings and quarterly forums to share experiences and lessons learned through leadership, sharing best practices, resolving common managerial problems, and featuring guest speakers who provide valuable lessons in leadership.
#### In the Matter of Cohen D. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Chantal D. et al., Appellants; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[68 NYS3d 451]

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about August 22, 2016, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about August 9, 2016, which found neglect and derivative neglect, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from fact-finding order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

A preponderance of the evidence in the record supports Family Court’s determinations that both parents medically neglected Cohen, who was born prematurely and with serious medical issues, that the mother neglected both Cohen and Carmaj on account of her untreated mental health condition, and that the father derivatively neglected Carmaj *(see*Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [1] [A]; 1046 [b] [i]).

The medical and hospital records and the testimony of Cohen’s pediatrician at Bellevue Hospital show that the parents failed to ensure that Cohen received adequate nutri*473tion, which led to a diagnosis of failure to thrive. The pediatrician ruled out other possible causes for the child’s failure to thrive, and, after he was re-admitted to the hospital, Cohen fed well, gained weight steadily, and exhibited none of the intestinal issues that the parents had cited as barriers to feeding him *(see Matter of Justin A. [Jesus A.],*94 AD3d 575 [1st Dept 2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 807 [2012]). The record also shows that the father left the home at some point, leaving the children’s care to the mother, who was uncooperative with Cohen’s doctors, missed appointments, and disregarded medical advice. The mother’s conduct placed the medically vulnerable Cohen in imminent danger of impairment; among other things, she caused an extended delay in obtaining early intervention services for him *(see Matter of Jaelin L. [Kimrenee C.],*126 AD3d 795 [2d Dept 2015], *lv denied*25 NY3d 910 [2015]; *Matter of Josephine BB. [Rosetta BB.],*114 AD3d 1096, 1098-1099 [3d Dept 2014]). Petitioner agency repeatedly referred the mother for mental health evaluations, but she failed to address her evident mental health issues, which significantly impaired her judgment concerning the medical and other needs of both children *(see Matter of Danielle M.,*151 AD2d 240, 243 [1st Dept 1989]; *Matter of Zariyasta S.,*158 AD2d 45, 48 [1st Dept 1990]).

The parents’ medical neglect of Cohen demonstrates so flawed an understanding of the responsibilities and duties of parenthood as to support the finding of derivative neglect of Carmaj *(see*Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; *Matter of Justin A.,*94 AD3d at 575).

We have considered the parents’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Kapnick, Webber and Oing, JJ.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2322

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the cost that the Secretary

of Veterans Affairs may incur to pay for a contract burial of a

nonservice-connected disabled veteran who dies in a Department of Veterans Affairs facility, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 26 (legislative day, JULY 20), 1994

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the

cost that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may incur

to pay for a contract burial of a nonservice-connected

disabled veteran who dies in a Department of Veterans

Affairs facility, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 2322 IS

1 SECTION 1. AMOUNT OF CONTRACT BURIAL COSTS OF

2 NONSERVICE-CONNECTED DISABLED VETER3 ANS WHO DIE IN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

4 AFFAIRS FACILITIES.

5 (a) AUTHORITY.—Paragraph (1) of section 2303(a)

6 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking

7 out ‘‘within such limits,’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

8 ‘‘within such limits (in the case of a service-connected vet9 eran) or at a cost not to exceed $600 (in the case of a

10 nonservice-connected veteran),’’.

11 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Such section is fur12 ther amended by striking out ‘‘section 1701(4)’’ in the

13 matter above paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof

14 ‘‘section 1701(3)’’.

15 SEC. 2. REVISED SUBMITTAL DATE FOR REPORT ON AN16 NUAL ANALYSIS OF DEPARTMENTWIDE AD17 MISSIONS POLICIES.

18 Section 8110(a)(3)(B) of title 38, United States

19 Code, is amended by striking out ‘‘December 1’’ and in20 serting in lieu thereof ‘‘April 1’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30484-30485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14809]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 1417-001]


Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District and 
Nebraska Public Power District; Notice of Settlement Offer

May 29, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 15, 1998, the Central Nebraska Public Power 
and Irrigation District, Nebraska Public Power District, U.S. 
Department of the Interior, State of Wyoming, State of Colorado, Sierra 
Club, Nebraska Wildlife Federation, American Rivers,

[[Page 30485]]

National Audubon Society, and Platte River Whooping Crane Critical 
Habitat Maintenance Trust filed an offer of settlement for the Kingsley 
Dam Project (FERC No. 1417) and the North Platte/Keystone Diversion 
Project (FERC No. 1835) per Rule 602 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.602.
    Comments on the proposed settlement may be filed with Commission no 
later than June 4, 1998, and replies no later than June 15, 1998. 
Copies of comments and replies by parties and intervenors must be 
served on all other parties and intervenors. Under Rule 602(f)(3), a 
failure to file comments constitutes a waiver of all objections to the 
offer of settlement.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-14809 Filed 6-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

CHRISTINE AXSMITH

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT

FROM RETIRED STATUS

PER CURIAM

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

No. 114 DB 2013 (No. 54 RST 2014)

Attorney Registration No. 61718

(Out of State)

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2014, the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated August 13, 2014, is approved and it is ORDERED

that Christine Axsmith, who has been on Retired Status, has never been suspended or

disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, competency and

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is,

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall

be paid by the Petitioner.
# Army logistics leader visits DLA Troop Support, gains insight on mission 

/ Published March 10, 2022
PHILADELPHIA, 
The Army Headquarters G-4 Deputy Chief of Staff Sergeant Major visited the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support March 9, to learn more about their mission and discuss ways to enhance the two organizations’ partnership.

Sgt. Maj. Jimmy Sellers met with DLA Troop Support Commander Army Brig. Gen. Eric Shirley and other senior leaders to gain a better awareness of Troop Support’s mission.

“We at G-4 work in concert with DLA,” Sellers said. “This visit is to get a better understanding of the DLA enterprise and to see how we can assist in improving support for our soldiers.”

The Army G-4 is comprised of eight directorates whose mission is to set Army logistics policies, as well as plan, program and oversee their execution.

During his visit with the Construction and Equipment supply chain, Sellers spoke with John Finchen, customer operations supervisor, about ways to improve the customer relationship with Army logisticians who may not be familiar with the proper procedures to request support from DLA.

Finchen, who regularly travels to military units to train them on C&E’s ordering process for their varied products and programs, said that one way to improve customer integration could be to provide training earlier.

“A problem we run into sometimes is that the customer thinks we are the DLA of the 1980s, where we stored everything in a warehouse somewhere and you put the order in and we send the item out because it’s in stock. We don’t operate that way anymore,” Finchen said.

Instead, he suggested integrating training on how DLA works at the early stages of logisticians’ careers to avoid misperceptions that solidify as they develop into senior leaders.

Sellers said the visit was very productive, and he was impressed by the workforce’s passion and professionalism.

“I learned a lot more than I thought I would in just a few hours,” he said. “[DLA] Troop Support has a dynamic mission that looks like its very rewarding. The workforce here is excited about what they do, and there are a lot of great things happening here.”
#### Forsythe & Lincoln Associates, Inc., Appellant, v Sylvan Lawrence Company et al., Respondents. Sylvan Lawrence Company et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Planned Building Services, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

[767 NYS2d 600]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about July 30, 2002, which, upon reargument, adhered to the prior order of the same court and Justice, entered April 9, 2002, granting defendants’ motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied that branch of plaintiffs motion seeking to renew its opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly adhered to its prior grant of summary judgment since plaintiff tenant, in this action to recover for allegedly inadequate premises security, failed to respond to defendant landlord’s and managing agent’s prima facie showing that they had met their obligation to take minimal security measures to protect plaintiff from the criminal conduct of third parties, with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether the precautions taken by defendants were, in fact, adequate under the circumstances *(cf. Wayburn v Madison Land Ltd. Partnership,*282 AD2d 301 [2001]). Renewal was properly denied in light of plaintiffs failure to offer a reasonable excuse for its failure to submit the proffered new matter on the prior motion *(see Cuccia v City of New York,*306 AD2d 2, 2-3 [2003]). In any event, the new matter, an expert affidavit, even if considered, would not have sufficed to raise a triable issue since it was conclusory and did not explain how the vague departures *130noted were causally related to plaintiffs damages *(see Nangano v Mount Sinai Hosp.,*305 AD2d 473 [2003]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.