alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00336-CR

DAVID EUGENE WHITE

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

453rd District Court of Hays County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR-20-0864-E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be permanently abated. The Court orders the 

appeal permanently ABATED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 26, 2023
#### In the Matter of Ronald Lynch, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 403]

Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (McNamara, J.), entered October 3, 2002, which denied claimant’s application pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) for permission to file a late claim.

Claimant, a prison inmate, filed a claim on August 27, 2001 alleging that various correction officers had harassed him on or about May 18, 2001. As the claim was not timely filed, claimant thereafter sought permission to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), contending that the subject delay was occasioned by his misinterpretation of CPLR 2103 and the inability to secure the services of a notary public. Finding claimant’s proffered excuse inadequate and the underlying claim of questionable merit, the Court of Claims denied claimant’s application. This appeal ensued.

*1003We affirm. Recognizing the broad discretion afforded the Court of Claims when entertaining a motion for permission to file a late claim (see *Matter of Gonzalez v State of New York,*299 AD2d 675 [2002]), this Court has declined to disturb the denial of such an application where, as here, “the excuse offered for the delay is inadequate and the proposed claim is of questionable merit” *(Matter of Perez v State of New York,*293 AD2d 918, 919 [2002]). Inasmuch as “ignorance of the law is not an acceptable explanation for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim” *(Matter of Sandlin v State of New York,*294 AD2d 723, 724 [2002], *lv dismissed*99 NY2d 589 [2003]; *Matter of Perez v State of New York, supra),*claimant’s misinterpretation of CPLR 2103 does not provide a basis for the requested relief, nor does his unsubstantiated assertion that he was denied access to a notary public until shortly before the underlying claim was filed. As to the claim itself, which appears to assert a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the case law makes clear that such cause of action cannot be maintained against a governmental entity (see *Liranzo v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*300 AD2d 548 [2002]). We, therefore, find no abuse of discretion in the denial of claimant’s application.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
2017-1725.

#### State v. Brazina.

Mahoning App. No. 15 MA 0191, 2017-0hio-7500. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Kennedy, J., dissents.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10475

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERTO BAHENA-VALLADARES, also known as Roberto ValladaresBahena,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:13-CR-67-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Roberto BahenaValladares has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Bahena-Valladares has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 23, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-10475 Document: 00512880464 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2014
No. 14-10475

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-10475 Document: 00512880464 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2014
#### Mary R.F., Matter of (Angela I.)

4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1493

denied
No. 10-5141.

#### Alonso Flores Salas, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 906, 131 S. Ct. 249,

178 L. Ed. 2d 164,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6859.

October 4, 2010.

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

*165Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 355.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ART. 5 FDS FOR PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 10-Q
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the June 30, 1997 Form 10-Q, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK> 0000067182
<NAME> MOBILCORP/CCARULLO
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            887   
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   6,516
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                     2,522
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,926
<PP&E>                                         50,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                 25,485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 44,560
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13,064
<BONDS>                                         4,164
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                       674
<COMMON>                                          893
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,015
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   44,560
<SALES>                                        32,307  <F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               32,935  <F1>
<CGS>                                          20,999
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  22,257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                5,269
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                189
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 3,278
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,602
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,676
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,676
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    2.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2.04
<FN>
<F1> SALES AND TOTAL REVENUES INCLUDE $2,946 MILLION OF EXCISE AND 
STATE GASOLINE TAXES
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### John Protonentis, Appellant, v Joseph Battaglia et al., Respondents.

[52 NYS3d 888]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), dated January 20, 2016, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). One of the defendants’ experts found significant limitations in the range of motion of the plaintiff’s right shoulder and the lumbar region of his spine, and the expert failed to adequately explain and substantiate his belief that the limitations were self-imposed *(see Miller v Ebrahim,*134 AD3d 915, 916 [2015]; *Mercado v Mendoza,*133 AD3d 833, 834 [2015]; *India v O’Connor,*97 AD3d 796 [2012]; *cf. Gonzales v Fiallo,*47 AD3d 760 [2008]).

Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff,*90 AD3d 969 [2011]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Rivera, J.R, Austin, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.
# Info Ops support Korea training exercise 

/ Published July 8, 2022
CAMP HUMPHREYS, Korea, 
Defense Logistics Agency Indo-Pacific in South Korea supported warfighters on the Korean Peninsula in April by participating in the U.S. Forces Korea Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Combined Command Post Training Exercise 22-1.

DLA Indo-Pacific established a 24/7 Korea Synchronization Operations Center to plan, coordinate, integrate and synchronize all DLA activities across South Korea, and part of this mission is to ensure steady communications with DLA elements on the peninsula, the DLA Indo-Pacific Synchronization Operations Center in Hawaii and the Agency Synchronization Operations Center at Fort Belvoir, Va.

**“**Establishing good communication is the key to success on every level,” said Jason Cadieux, IT specialist.

The SIPR/NIPR Access Point, or SNAP, satellite terminal is used during contingency and tactical operations to allow network access for exchanging information over DLA NIPR (voice/data) and SIPR (data) networks. The SNAP key capabilities offer offers long-range network communications, easily transportable, and the modular design allows for varying dish and antenna sizes to accomplish mission requirements.

Steady communications can’t be accomplished without information technology specialists from DLA Information Operations.  “We could not support the warfighter without reliable comms and Rome [Mateo] and Jason [Cadieux] make this happen for us every day,” Army COL Brian Donahue, DLA Indo-Pacific Military Deputy Commander said. “Their dedication ensures DLA is ready to support USFK and their ‘Fight Tonight’ mission.”

The DLA Indo-Pacific team participated in scenarios that simulated the coordination, integration, and execution of supporting the defense of the ROK in a contingency.

Participants included the United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command, United States Forces Korea, United States Forces Japan, Eighth Army, Seventh Air Force, Commander Naval Forces Korea, Marines Forces Korea, Special Operations Forces Korea, and elements from Seventh Fleet and the III Marine Expeditionary Force.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1786 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1786

 To increase the authorization of appropriations for the Belle Fourche 
              Irrigation Project, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 25, 1994

  Mr. Daschle (for himself and Mr. Pressler) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To increase the authorization of appropriations for the Belle Fourche 
              Irrigation Project, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 7 of the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize rehabilitation 
of the Belle Fourche irrigation project, and for other purposes'', 
approved November 7, 1983 (97 Stat. 990), is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Sec. 7. There'' and inserting ``Sec. 7. 
        (a) There''; and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (a), the following new 
        subsection:
    ``(b) There is authorized to be appropriated beginning October 1, 
1994, for the rehabilitation and betterment of the irrigation 
facilities of the Belle Fourche unit and recreation and fish and 
wildlife measures as authorized by this Act, $24,750,000 (based on 
January 1981 prices), plus or minus such amounts, if any, as may be 
justified by reason of ordinary fluctuations in construction cost 
indexes applicable to the types of construction involved herein.''.

                                 <all>
```
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★

▲ ▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

10/09

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Oct 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
# DLA Troop Support celebrates retirement of two civilian employees

/ Published Sept. 29, 2021
PHILADELPHIA, 
The Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support celebrated the retirement of two civilian employees during a ceremony Sept. 27 in Philadelphia.

Janet Day of the Business Process Support office retired after 40 years of service. Sharon (Sherri) Leslie, also from BPS, retired after 21 years of federal service.

DLA Troop Support Commander Brig. Gen. Eric Shirley presided over the ceremony and congratulated the retirees on their combined 61 years of federal service. He also thanked their families for the support they offered throughout the years.

“A great part of one’s success can be attributed to their support system at home, and for our honorees today, that’s true for both of these ladies who are being recognized today on the occasion of their retirement,” Shirley said. “Sometimes our families at home, unfortunately, are faced with some sacrifice because of the duties that you ladies have attended to so well over these past decades of service. That family sacrifice is never easy.”

Each retiree received a certificate of retirement, DLA Troop Support mementos and a commander’s coin. In addition, Leslie’s husband, Roger, received a spouse’s certificate of appreciation.

Day’s federal career started in 1981 as a clerk typist at the Navy Printing and Publications Office. In 1984, she joined the Defense Industrial Supply Center as a supply clerk typist in the Emergency Supply Operations Center. She worked on the center’s first personal computers, which led to the development of the personal computer application group and the distribution of personal computers to employees. Day is retiring as a demand supply chain analyst in BPS for the Construction and Equipment and the Clothing and Textile supply chains. 

“It’s been 40 years, and I’m looking forward to the next 40 or so, doing the many things that I enjoy [such as] hobbies, outreach, and just enjoying it,” Day said.

After graduating high school, Leslie joined the Navy Junior ROTC program and then the Navy, following in her father’s footsteps. She spent five years on active duty in Adak, Alaska; Bremerton, Washington; and Lewes, Delaware. After the birth of her first child, Leslie left active duty, and returned as a Navy reservist following her second child’s birth. She joined DLA as a contractor but was soon recalled to active duty to be part of the first Navy Customs Battalion in Kuwait. After returning from active duty, she was selected as a DLA intern. Leslie is retiring as a BPS business process analyst, where her roles included managing aspects of the government acquisition website FedMall and assisting with day-to-day issues. She is also former state commander for the Delaware Veterans of Foreign Wars and the only woman to ever hold the role.

“I thoroughly enjoyed my job here at DLA,” Leslie said. “I’ve worked hard, I achieved as much as I could in the short time I was here. I have a lot of family here at DLA, so hopefully when things get back to somewhat normal, we can have picnics and parties again, and we can all get together.”
No. 10-5168.

#### Antonio Van Cox, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 907, 131 S. Ct. 253,

178 L. Ed. 2d 167,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7416.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 09-11384.

#### Tracy Anthony Miller, Petitioner v. Tydus Meadows, Warden.

562 U.S. 877, 131 S. Ct. 189,

178 L. Ed. 2d 113,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7015.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Georgia, Baldwin County, denied.
EXHIBIT 13.1




Section 906 Certification by Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer




In connection with the Annual Report of Elbit Imaging Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Doron Moshe, in my capacities as the Company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer, 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:




(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and




(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: April 30, 2015
  By:/s/ Doron Moshe

Name: Doron Moshe

Title: Acting Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2311

To exempt a foreign holding company from the application of the provisions

of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 22 (legislative day, JULY 20), 1994

Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. JEFFORDS) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To exempt a foreign holding company from the application

of the provisions of the Public Utility Holding Company

Act of 1935.

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

3 SECTION 1. PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY EXEMP4 TION.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The provisions of the Public Util6 ity Holding Company Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C. 79a et seq.)

7 shall not apply to a foreign holding company that has a

8 gas utility subsidiary company in a foreign country contig9 uous to the United States and the State of Vermont, solely
2

•S 2311 IS

1 as a result of the acquisition, directly or indirectly, by the

2 holding company of all the voting securities of a gas utility

3 company that—

4 (1) is organized and operating under the laws

5 of Vermont; and

6 (2) has its service territory contiguous to the

7 gas utility operations of the holding company.

8 (b) APPLICABILITY TO AFFILIATES.—The exemption

9 under subsection (a) also applies to a person or company

10 that—

11 (1) is an affiliate (as defined in section

12 2(a)(11)(A) of the Public Utility Holding Company

13 Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C. 79b(a)(11)(A)) of the hold14 ing company described in subsection (a); and

15 (2) is not an affiliate of any other public utility

16 company organized and operating in the United

17 States.

18 (c) INAPPLICABILITY TO OTHER ACQUISITIONS.—

19 The exemption granted by subsection (a) shall not apply

20 to the acquisition or retention by any holding company

21 of voting securities of a public utility company organized

22 or operating within the United States except as provided

23 in subsection (a).

Æ
#### Alberto DiCembrino et al., Appellants, v Verizon New York Inc. et al., Respondents. Verizon New York Inc. et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v James F. Volpe Electric Co., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 350]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered May 25, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs did not establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because their own submissions raised an issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident *(see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City,*1 NY3d 280, 290 [2003]). At his deposition, the injured plaintiff testified that he fell because he *542missed a step on the ladder as he descended from it, and he did not attribute his fall to any inadequacy of the 12-foot A-frame ladder that he was using at that time. In contrast, his affidavit stated that the accident occurred when the ladder wobbled, and his foot slipped on debris placed on a ladder rung that lacked any non-slip treads. Thus, the conflict inherent in the injured plaintiff’s own account of the accident raised an issue of fact as to whether it was caused by defendants’ failure to provide an adequate safety device, or solely by plaintiff’s own conduct *(see Ellerbe v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*91 AD3d 441, 442 [1st Dept 2012]; *Hamill v Mutual of Am. Inv. Corp.,*79 AD3d 478, 479 [1st Dept 2010]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.
#### Younger v. Kerestes

04/06/2016

477 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 124 A.3d 426
#### Capital One Taxi Medallion Fin. v Corrigan

1st Dept: 147 AD3d 677

granted
No. 09-1452.

#### Amando Gamboa-Molina, Petitioner v. Arizona.

562 U.S. 834, 131 S. Ct. 140,

178 L. Ed. 2d 35,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6489.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, denied.