alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# PaCE Spotlight: LaRoy "Lulu" Clark 

/ Published Feb. 15, 2023
BATTLE CREEK, Mich. , 
LaRoy “Lulu” Clark is currently the environmental supervisor for the Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services in Columbus, Ohio. She participated in the Pathways to Career Excellence Program from 2015-2017.

                DLA Disposition Services PaCE Spotlight                            DLA Disposition Services employee LaRoy “Lulu” Clark participated in the Pathways to Career Excellence Program from 2015-2017.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Jace ArmstrongVIRIN: 230203-D-D0441-402**Why did you first apply to the PaCE Program?**

I started DLA with Long Term Storage in 2010, and then I applied for the PaCE program to further my career.

*Note: Columbus operated Long Term Storage until 2021 when it was converted to a routine warehouse as a result of Network Optimization efforts.*

**What was your position before coming to the PaCE Program?**

I was in a Wage Grade position. Prior to government service, I was a legal assistant and warehouse management.

**What have been your favorite parts of the PaCE Program?**

Definitely meeting new people. I also enjoyed the opportunity to wear different hats depending on where manpower was needed.

**Do you have a favorite memory from your time in the program?**

My class came from all over the United States, and we became a little family of our own, as most of us did not have connections with Michigan. I still talk to the majority of my classmates on a regular basis.

**If there was one thing that could’ve been different for you in the PaCE program, what would it be?**

I would move the Hart-Dole Inouye Federal Center to Columbus.

**What would you say is the most important quality to succeed in the PaCE program?**

Listen to the “dinosaurs.” The knowledge that can be garnered from those who have been with DLA since the “DAISY” days, and some prior to that, are a wealth of information. Do not pass up an opportunity to learn something, even if you do not think you will use it in the future, chances are you eventually will need to know.

*Note: DLA Disposition Services Automated Information System, DAISY, was the predecessor to the Distribution Standard System, DSS, the current system used in DLA Disposition Services Field Sites to keep track of property. DSS is in the process of being replaced by the Warehouse Management System, WMS.*

----

*Editorial Note: The Pathways to Career Excellence Program for DLA Disposition Services is a two-year program that takes PaCERs through all of Disposition Services and its processes to learn as much as possible about the directorate. The first year takes place at DLA Disposition Services Headquarters in Battle Creek, Michigan, and the second year either takes place in Battle Creek for Contracting PaCERs or at an assigned field site for Property Disposal PaCERs. PaCERs begin as general schedule 7s, move to GS-9s at the end of their first year, and graduate the program as GS-11s. There are multiple pathways to becoming a PaCER, including being hired internally, as a recent graduate, or from military service.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 23, 2013

h1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2013

147625 & (26)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147625

COA: 310740

Berrien CC: 92

- 003857

- FC

TRACY ALEXANDER MARTIN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 3, 2013 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The amended

motion to remand is DENIED.
2017-0661.

#### State v. Robinson.

In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed. On petitioner’s motion for release upon bail during pending proceedings. Motion denied as moot.

O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., not participating.
No. 09-10914.

#### Raj Karee Edge, Petitioner v. Ray Lawler, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, et al.

562 U.S. 855, 131 S. Ct. 119,

178 L. Ed. 2d 73,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5940.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32909-32910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15944]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation


Advisory Board, Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. I) notice is hereby given of a meeting 
of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation (SLSDC), to be held at 11:00 a.m., on Wednesday, June 24, 
1998, at the Rosemont Suites Hotel, 5500 North River Road, Rosemont, 
Illinois. The agenda for this meeting will be as follows: Opening 
Remarks; Consideration of Minutes of Past Meeting; Review of Programs; 
New Business; and Closing Remarks.
    Attendance at meeting is open to the interested public but limited 
to the space available. With the approval of the Administrator, members 
of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons 
wishing further information should contact not later than June 19, 
1998, Marc C. Owen,

[[Page 32910]]

Advisory Board Liaison, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590; 202-366-6823.
    Any member of the public may present a written statement to the 
Advisory Board at any time.

    Issued at Washington, D.C. on June 11, 1998.
Marc C. Owen,
Advisory Board Liaison.
[FR Doc. 98-15944 Filed 6-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-61-M
#### Angelique Marrero, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant, and Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 652]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cohen, J.), dated November 13, 2015, which granted the separate applications of the plaintiff and the defendant Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc., for an award of costs in the form of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

*1098Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted *(see*CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“The court rule set forth in 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, which is intended to limit frivolous and harassing behavior, authorizes a court, in its discretion, to award a party in a civil action reasonable attorney’s fees resulting from frivolous conduct” *(Matter of Miller v Miller,*96 AD3d 943, 944 [2012] [citations omitted]). Conduct is frivolous if, inter alia, it is “completely without merit in law” or “asserts material factual statements that are false” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1], [3]; *see Matter of Ernestine R.,*61 AD3d 874, 876 [2009]). “In determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous, the court shall consider, among other issues the circumstances under which the conduct took place, including the time available for investigating the legal or factual basis of the conduct, and whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent, should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel or the party” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]).

Here, contrary to the contention of the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter NYCTA), the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the separate applications of the plaintiff and the defendant Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc., for an award of costs in the form of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, based on the frivolous conduct of NYCTA’s trial counsel *(see generally Andrew v Kerendian,*130 AD3d 951, 952 [2015]; *Degtiarev v*Delecia-Kenny, 105 AD3d 691 [2013]; *Kornblum v Kornblum,*34 AD3d 749, 751 [2006]; *Kucker v Kaminsky & Rich,*7 AD3d 491, 492 [2004]).

NYCTA’s remaining contention is without merit.

Chambers, J.P., Sgroi, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.
159 A.3d 1266

#### IN THE MATTER OF BENJAMIN NAZMIYAL, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 034882009)

April 11, 2017

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court pursuant to *Rule*1:20—15(k) a recommendation (DRB 17-074) that BENJAMIN NAZMIYAL of FORT LEE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2010, and who has been temporarily suspended from the practice of law since June 14, 2016, by Orders of the Court filed May 13, 2016, June 28, 2016, February 8, 2017, and March 1, 2017, be suspended from the practice of law and compelled to pay a monetary sanction to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for failure to comply with the determination of *20the District IIB Fee Arbitration Committee in Docket No. IIB-2015-0069F, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that BENJAMIN NAZMIYAL be temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective May 10, 2017, and until respondent complies with the determination of the District IIB Fee Arbitration Committee in Docket No. IIB-2015-0069F, pays a sanction of $500 to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee, and until the further Order of the Court; provided, however, this Order shall be vacated automatically if the Disciplinary Review Board reports to the Court that prior to the effective date of the suspension, respondent has satisfied all obligations under this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that if respondent seeks to be heard on this matter, he shall file with the Clerk of the Court within ten days of the file date of this Order a written request for the issuance of an Order to Show Cause; and it is further

ORDERED that BENJAMIN NAZMIYAL remain suspended from the practice of law pursuant to the Orders of the Court filed May 13, 2016 (077666; D-117-15 and 077667; D-118-15), June 28, 2016 (077899; D-148-15 and 077900; D-149-15), February 8, 2017 (078810; D-74-16), and March 1, 2017 (D-90-16; 078938), and pending his compliance with the fee arbitration determinations entered in District Docket Nos. IIB-2014-009F, VC-2013-0591F, and IIB-2015-034F, IIB-2015-0028F, IIB-2015-0025F, and IIB-2016-0004F, and payment of the sanctions of $500 in each matter to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoined *from*practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he continue to comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State.
No. 09-10615.

#### Darryl Keith Baker, Petitioner v. Kentucky.

562 U.S. 847, 131 S. Ct. 94,

178 L. Ed. 2d 59,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5919,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
#### In the Matter of David B. Claudia B., Respondent; Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent. Robert C. Mitchell, Nonparty Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 620]

— In two related adoption proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the Law Guardian appeals, by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lehman, J.), dated December 2, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services to dismiss the petition of Claudia B., the aunt of the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court correctly dismissed the adoption petition filed by the aunt of the subject child *(see Matter of David B.,*2 AD3d 725 [2003] [decided herewith]). Santucci, J.P., Adams, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Michael F., III. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Shreeis J., Respondent. Michael F., Jr., Nonparty Appellant.

[59 NYS3d 425]

Appeal by the nonparty father from an order of the Family Court, Rings County (Anne E. O’Shea, J.), dated March 7, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, without a hearing, granted that branch of the mother’s motion which was to hold the father in civil contempt of a prior order of disposition of that court dated December 23, 2014.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the mother’s motion which was to hold the father in civil contempt of the prior order of disposition of the Family Court dated December 23, 2014, is denied.

In this Family Court Act article 10 proceeding commenced against the respondent mother, the Family Court, by order dated March 7, 2016, inter alia, granted that branch of the mother’s motion which was to hold the nonparty father in civil contempt of a prior order of disposition. The father appeals.

The Family Court should have denied that branch of the mother’s motion which was to hold the father in civil contempt of the prior order of disposition. To prevail on a motion to hold another in civil contempt, the moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence “(1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the order was disobeyed and the party disobeying *771the order had knowledge of its terms, and (3) that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct” *(El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan,*114 AD3d 4, 16 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted], *affd*26 NY3d 19 [2015]). “To satisfy the prejudice element, it is sufficient to allege and prove that the contemnor’s actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party” *(Astrada v Archer,*71 AD3d 803, 806-807 [2010]). Here, the mother’s papers failed to sufficiently allege that the father defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced her rights (see Judiciary Law § 753 [A]; *Whitehead v Whitehead,*122 AD3d 921, 922 [2014]).

Leventhal, J.P., Barros, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-K AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          65,782
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,441
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,397
<PP&E>                                          20,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,546
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 203,709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,209
<BONDS>                                        130,004
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   203,709
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,979
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,929
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,032
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,617
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,881
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,264)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (85)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,349)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit        10.1

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements        on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-9354 and 333-139512) pertaining to the employees' stock option        plans of Elbit Systems Ltd. of our report dated March 10, 2008, with respect to the        consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Elbit Systems Ltd.        and subsidiaries and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of        Elbit Systems Ltd. and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the        year ended December 31, 2007.

 

 

|   | By:/s/ Kost Forer Gabbay &                        Kasierer |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer                               |
|   | A member of Ernst & Young Global                           |

 

Haifa,        Israel, May 28, 2008
#### Kolel Damsek Eliezer, Inc. v Schlesinger

2d Dept: 139 AD3d 810

denied
# ABC 6 News ‘She Serves’ features DLA Land and Maritime commander, readiness officer

/ Published Dec. 17, 2021

A local news special which debuted in December features two Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime leaders.

Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Commander Navy Rear Adm. Kristen Fabry and Maritime Customer Operations Weapons Systems Readiness Officer Navy Cmdr. Brandolyn Roberts are among several military women in Central Ohio profiled as part of a 30-minute program on ABC 6 News titled “She Serves”. 

Read more below from ABC 6 News about the special:

They are Ohio’s warriors – women serving across the spectrum of our armed forces. They represent the military’s past, present, and future.

ABC 6 News is featuring their dedication in an On Your Side Special: **She Serves.**

“Not just the men of Ohio, not just the men of this nation, put their lives on the line,” Major General (Ret) Deborah Ashenhurst, Director of the Ohio Dept. of Veterans Services, said. “Women do also.”

There are approximately 750,000 veterans currently calling Ohio home. 67,000 of those veterans are women, which may come as a surprise to many.

“You think of service and often times you think of the military and you may think of one gender, not both men and women,” Navy Rear Adm. Kristen Fabry, DLA Land and Maritime and DSCC Commander said.

Women bring unique perspectives to our armed forces.

“Both mentally and physically, we are designed to do what men can’t do,” Staff Sgt. Simone Williams, who currently serves as a Crew Chief with the Ohio Air National Guard, said.

You’ll fly in Blackhawks over the city of Columbus, experience PT in the rotunda of The Shoe, soar beyond our state in the skies over Niagara Falls on a refueling mission and much more all in a day’s work for the Ohio women serving our country.

Be inspired by their dedication, with an impact felt long after they hang up their uniform.
# Norfolk-based materials examiner honored

/ Published March 15, 2021
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Norfolk Materials Examiner & Identifier Robert Montgomery was selected as Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Employee of the Quarter for his outstanding contributions to start the 2021 fiscal year.

The longtime contractor who spent a dozen years with military property disposal firms came into the fold as a government civilian with DLA about a year and a half ago. He previously supported the mission in Washington, California, North Carolina, and now multiple sites in Virginia.

He said that in his current role, he enjoys the opportunity to interact with reuse, transfer and donation customers on a regular basis, and his relationship with colleagues is easily the best thing about coming to work each morning.

“We play a critical role in fulfilling [customer] needs with equipment and supplies that they’re unable to get through conventional means. This really gives me my ‘why’ and drives my passion for the job, and the sense of accomplishment that comes along with it,” Montgomery said. As for his coworkers, “we really do employ some amazing people. The amount of information they’re willing to share, as well as effort put forth to meet our common goals, is simply amazing.”

According to Norfolk Area Manager Becky Watson, Montgomery was nominated for a variety of personal efforts, including taking on the roles of multiple colleagues during unexpected COVID-19 related absences.

“Mr. Montgomery singlehandedly issued, pulled, packed and loaded over 100 [material requisitions] with values exceeding $350,000 to local, [Law Enforcement Support Office], donation and transfer customers with zero discrepancies,” Watson wrote. “Additionally, he has gone above and beyond to assist with both internal and external customer needs to help the warfighter with a high degree of consistency, accuracy, timeliness, and professionalism in the resolution of issues and or concerns.”

Montgomery said he was thankful for the recognition and praised his colleagues.

“DLA Disposition Services Norfolk has some of the best people I’ve worked with in my 13 years around DLA,” he said.
* 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. 07-40584

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

IRINEO ESPINO-REYES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CR-726-1

Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Irineo Espino-Reyes (Espino) pleaded guilty in 2002 to illegally reentering

the United States following deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony

conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b), and he was sentenced to 37

months of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. In

2007, Espino pleaded guilty to violating the conditions of his supervised release

by illegally reentering the United States again. Solely on the basis of that

violation, Espino’s supervised release was revoked, and he was sentenced to six

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40584

2

months of imprisonment, to run consecutively to the sentence for his second

illegal reentry conviction.

The written judgment also listed a second violation as the basis of the

revocation of Espino’s supervised release. Both Espino and the Government

request that his case be remanded for the limited purpose of correcting this

clerical error. We remand for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to

reflect that Espino violated the terms of his supervised release by illegally

reentering the United States. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 36.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF

CORRECTING CLERICAL ERROR IN JUDGMENT.