alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA Distribution Commander delivers USMC Birthday message

/ Published Nov. 9, 2022
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
November 10 marks the 247th birthday of the United States Marine Corps. I would like to wish our current and former Marines a very Happy Birthday!

Today’s Marines remain true to their motto, “Semper Fidelis,” Latin for “Always Faithful.” Since 1775, Marines have fought and died in every conflict our country has faced including the American Revolutionary War, the Spanish-American War, World Wars in Europe and the Pacific, Vietnam, and operations in the Middle East.

General David H. Berger, Marine Corps Commandant, said it best in his 2022 Marine Corps birthday message, quoting Army Major General Frank E. Lowe, who said, "The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of Marines. Lord, how they could fight." While General Lowe made that comment 70 years ago, Marines continue to exemplify their values of honor, courage, and commitment in the legendary battles that have been fought and won across generations. Today, Marines continue to be relentless in their pursuit of excellence.

“We are still made from the same grit and steel, with the same moral instincts, and the same unending will to fight. Marines remain physically mentally and emotionally tough, forged in the crucible to overcome fear and adversity. In these ways, the Corps and the lifelong faith we place in each other, is proudly unchanging,” said Berger.

I see that same tenacity in our DLA Distribution Marine Veterans. The work they do in support of the Warfighter is a living testament to the faith Marines keep with each other, the Marine Corps, and our great nation. As future generations of Marines join the ranks, they may operate differently or in different places, but they join the long and proud heritage of Marines who never turn from a threat and always remain ready when the nation calls.

Please join me in celebrating the honorable, courageous, committed ... and always faithful Marine Corps – a force as strong today as they were 247 years ago. Thank you, DLA Distribution, for all you do each and every day for our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Guardians who are deployed all over the world ensuring our freedom.

Happy Birthday Marines! Semper Fidelis!
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7776

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VANCE LAMONT CHRISTIAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge;

Frederic N. Smalkin, Senior District Judge. (CR-01-10-S)

Submitted: June 30, 2003 Decided: July 25, 2003

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vance Lamont Christian, Appellant Pro Se. James Gerard Pyne,

Assistant United States Attorney, Albert David Copperthite, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

 Effective December 1, 2002, Rule 26 was revised to exclude

“intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays” when the time

period is less than eleven days. Previously, weekends and holidays

generally were excluded only when the time period was less than

seven days.

2

PER CURIAM:

Vance Lamont Christian seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion to correct his sentence under Fed. R.

Crim. P. 35(b). In criminal cases, the defendant must file his

notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R.

App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. Breit, 754 F.2d 526, 528

(4th Cir. 1985) (applying ten-day appeal period to Rule 35 motion).

With or without a motion, the district court may grant an extension

of time of up to thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect or

good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759

F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985).

The district court entered its order denying the motion for

reduction of sentence on October 15, 2002; the ten-day appeal

period expired on October 25, 2002. See Fed. R. App. P. 26.*

Christian filed his notice of appeal after the ten-day period

expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because

the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period,

we remanded the case to the district court for a determination of

whether Christian demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause

warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. The district
3

court concluded that Christian failed to demonstrate excusable

neglect or good cause and we find no abuse of discretion. Breit,

754 F.2d at 528 (providing standard of review). Because he failed

to timely file an appeal or obtain an extension for filing an

appeal, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Christian’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court.

DISMISSED
No. 09-11308.

#### Joshua Mitch Johnson, Petitioner v. Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 873, 131 S. Ct. 176,

178 L. Ed. 2d 105,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7036.

October 4, 2010.

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

*106Same case below, 353 Fed. Appx. 827.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0**
**- 6718** 

BILLY G. ASEMANI ,

P etitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv
- 01029

- RDB )

Submitted : October 29, 2010 Decided: November 19 , 2010

Before MOTZ and KING , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Billy G. Asemani, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in thi s circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Billy G. Asemani appeals the district court ’ s order
dismissing as frivolous his request for adjudication of his
naturalization application. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgm ent

of the dist rict court. Asemani v. Napolitano , No. 1:10

- cv
01029

- RDB (D. Md. May 4, 2010) . We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 09-10941.

#### Irwin Jacobowitz, et ux., Petitioners v. M&T Mortgage Corporation.

562 U.S. 856, 131 S. Ct. 122,

178 L. Ed. 2d 75,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5975.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Order entered May 15, 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 12

- 00902

- CV

DALLAS COUNTY HOSPIT AL DISTRICT D/B/A

PARKLAND HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SYSTEM, Appellant

V.

HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, I NC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 1 62nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 11

- 14542



### O RDER

The Court GRANTS appellant’s May 13, 2013 unopposed motion to extend time to file

motion for rehearing. Appellant is ORDERED to file its motion for rehearing , if a ny, by May

30 , 2013.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
#### Gibraltar Rock, Inc. v. New Hanover Tp.; New Hanover Tp., In re

12/16/2015

508 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 118 A.3d 461
No. 10-5131.

#### John Turpin, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 905, 131 S. Ct. 246,

178 L. Ed. 2d 163,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6518.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 593 F.3d 747.
No. 10-5633.

#### Brad Michael Eardley, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 932, 131 S. Ct. 330,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7317.

178 L. Ed. 2d 214,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 404.
No. 10-2.

#### Pacesetter Apparel, Inc., Petitioner v. Cobb County, Georgia, et al.

562 U.S. 889, 131 S. Ct. 225,

178 L. Ed. 2d 134,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6612.

October 4, 2010.

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

*135Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 910.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.B.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: K.B.R., A MINOR

:

:

:

:

:

No. 138 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of August, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Anthony Lynch, Appellant, v C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Respondent.

[69 NYS3d 15]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered November 17, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff truck driver/delivery person alleges that he was injured while manually unloading heavy boxes from a trailer owned by defendant. Plaintiff claims the shrink-wrap used by defendant’s employees to secure the boxes to a pallet came loose, causing the boxes to fall to the floor and requiring them to be unloaded by hand.

Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law first by showing that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition. Defendant submitted, inter alia, plaintiff’s testimony that he and defendant’s employees inspected the trailer before he left defendant’s facility to commence deliveries, and did not observe loose boxes on the floor. Nor did plaintiff observe loose boxes when he re-secured the load after his first delivery on the day of his accident *(see e.g. Atashi v Fred-Doug 117 LLC, 87*AD3d 455 [1st Dept 2011]; *Castore v Tutto Bene Rest. Inc.,*77 AD3d 599 [1st Dept 2010]). Defendant also showed that it lacked actual or constructive notice that there were boxes on the trailer’s floor. Plaintiff testified he did not notify defendant about the loose boxes before he decided to *472manually unload them at his second delivery of the day *(see Briggs v Pick Quick Foods, Inc.,*103 AD3d 526 [1st Dept 2013]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue. The possibility of injury arose only when plaintiff voluntarily opted to pick up the boxes and toss them to a store employee, even though he was not required to do so *(see Lee v New York City Hous. Auth.,*25 AD3d 214, 219 [1st Dept 2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 708 [2006] [“(t)he law draws a sharp distinction between a condition that merely sets the occasion for or facilitates an accident and an act that is a proximate cause of the accident”]).

Furthermore, plaintiff’s certified packing expert failed to identify any professional or industry standard to substantiate his assertions *(see Griffith v ETH NEP, L.P,*140 AD3d 451, 452 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 905 [2016]; *Jones v City of New York,*32 AD3d 706, 707 [1st Dept 2006]). The fact that defendant may have been aware that shrink-wrapping had previously come loose from other pallets did not establish that defendant had constructive notice that the subject pallet was loose before plaintiff sustained the injuries alleged *(see Vaughn v Harlem Riv. Yard Ventures II, Inc.,*118 AD3d 604 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Kapnick, Webber and Oing, JJ.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TEUANA CROSS and ANGELA PETERSON,

Appellants,

v.

THE BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2431

[November 24, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; John B. Bowman, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 13-26810.

Michael Hursey of Michael Hursey, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Angela 

L. Dawson of Angela L. Dawson, P.A., Plantation, for appellants.

Thomas W. Paradise, Tommie Derpima, and Lauren Stone of Vernis & 

Bowling of Broward, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, KLINGENSMITH and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 10-5696.

#### Vernon D. Woods, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 934, 131 S. Ct. 336,

178 L. Ed. 2d 218,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7311.

October 4, 2010.

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

*219Same case below, 375 Fed. Appx. 600.
No. 10-5225.

#### Thomas Carter, Petitioner v. Linda Schuette.

562 U.S. 910, 131 S. Ct. 260,

178 L. Ed. 2d 173,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6995.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 362 Fed. Appx. 863.
## NO. 12

- 12

- 00074

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

PINNACLE HEALTH FACI LITIES OF
TEXAS VII LP D/B/A E LKHART OAKS CARE CENTER,
APPELLANT

V.

JERRY WATTS AS NEXT FRIEND FOR DELORES WATTS AN D GARY
BUTLER ON BEHALF O F THE ESTATE OF GLADYS BUT LER,
APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 87 TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEX AS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

T he parties to this appeal have filed an agreed motion to set aside the judgment of the

t rial court pursuant to their settlement agreement. The motion is signed by counsel for all

parties. As grounds for the requested relief, the parties cite Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

42.1(a)(2)(B). This rule authorizes an appellate court, in accord ance with an agreement signed

by the parties or their attorneys and filed with the clerk, to set aside the trial court’s judgment

without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in

accordance with the agreement

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).

The parties have complied with the requirements of Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B). Accordingly, we

grant the parties' motion

, vacate the trial court's January 17, 2012 judgment, without reference to

the merits, and remand this c ase to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the

settlement agreement of the parties. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2) (B ).

Opinion delivered September 18 , 2013. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. ( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF A PPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 18 , 2013

NO. 12

- 12

- 00074

- CV

PINNACLE HEALTH FACI LITIES OF TEXAS VII LP D/B/A ELKHART OAK S CARE CENTER, Appellant
V.
JERRY WATTS AS NEXT FRIEND FOR DELORES W ATTS AND GARY BUTLER ON

BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF GLADYS BUTLER,

Appellee

Appeal from the 87th District Court

of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 87

- 11224)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the agreed

motion to set aside the judgment of the trial court pursuant to their settlement agreement , and the

same being considered, because it is the opinion of this court that the agreed motion should be

granted , it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that the trial court's

January 17, 2012 judgment be v acated without reference to the merits, and this case be

remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the settlement agreement of

the parties ; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opini on

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle , J

.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eduardo B. Quinones, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 663]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange’ County (Berry, J.), rendered July 1, 2014, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imp os-1 ing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the motion of Bruce A. Petito for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant is granted, and he is directed to turn over all papers in its possession to the appellant’s new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

Ordered that Gary E. Eisenberg, Esq., 10 Esquire Road, Suite 10, New City, NY, 10956, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the certified transcript of the proceedings to the appellant’s new assigned counsel; and it is further,

*625Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the appellant within 90 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, and the respondent shall serve and file its brief within 30 days after the brief on behalf of the appellant is served and filed. By prior decision and order on motion of this Court dated May 31, 2016, the appellant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, with the appeal to be heard on the original papers, including a certified transcript of the proceedings, and on the briefs of the parties, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other.

While we are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by assigned counsel, upon our independent review of the record, we conclude that nonfrivolous issues exist, including, but not necessarily limited to, whether the purported waiver of the defendant’s right to appeal was valid *(see generally People v Brown,*122 AD3d 133, 144-145 [2014]) and, if such waiver is found to be invalid, whether the sentence imposed was excessive *(see generally People v Delgado,*80 NY2d 780 [1992]; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 85-86 [1982]).

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



                            Section 906 Certification


I, Richard L. Hannigan, Sr., Chief Executive Officer and President of Voyager
Entertainment International, Inc., certify that (i) the attached Amendment No. 1
to the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Voyager Entertainment International, Inc.
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Form 10-KSB Report for said period in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Voyager
Entertainment International, Inc.

/s/ Richard L. Hannigan, Sr.                            Dated: April 15, 2005
----------------------------                                   --------------
Richard L. Hannigan, Sr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15521]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. IN98-3-000]

Consumers Energy Company; Notice of Informal Settlement 
Conference

June 5, 1998.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened 
in this proceeding on Tuesday, June 16, 1998 at 10:00 a.m., at the 
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
NE., Washington, DC, for the purpose of exploring the possible 
settlement of the above-referenced docket. If necessary, the conference 
will continue to Wednesday, June 17, 1998.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant, as 
defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    For additional information, contact Gerald L. Richman at (202) 208-
2036.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15521 Filed 6-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Montenegro, Appellant.

[60 NYS3d 95]

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the *554County Court, Suffolk County (Camacho, J.), rendered June 26, 2015, revoking a sentence of probation and restitution previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, without a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment and restitution upon his previous conviction of grand larceny in the third degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

A court may not revoke a sentence of probation without finding that the defendant has violated a condition of the sentence and affording the defendant an opportunity to be heard *(see*CPL 410.70 [1]). The statutory requirements may be satisfied either by conducting a revocation hearing pursuant to CPL 410.70 (3) *(see People v Lora,*162 AD2d 719 [1990]), or through an admission by the defendant of the violation, coupled with a proper waiver of the defendant’s right to a hearing *(see People v McDevitt,*97 AD3d 1039, 1040 [2012]).

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s contention that the County Court erred in finding that he violated the conditions of his probation without holding a hearing is not subject to the preservation requirement *(cf. People v Williams,*27 NY3d 212, 214 [2016]). The transcript of the resentencing proceeding confirms that the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to object to the court’s procedure before the finding of probation violation was made, and the defendant was resen-tenced immediately thereafter.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the record contains no evidence that the defendant freely admitted to the violation of probation. Nor is there any evidence that the defendant waived his right to a revocation hearing pursuant to CPL 410.70. Rather, the County Court, without conducting any hearing, found “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the defendant had violated the conditions of his probation. This was error *(see People v Lora,*162 AD2d 719 [1990]).

Accordingly, the amended judgment must be reversed and the matter remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for a revocation hearing pursuant to CPL 410.70 and a new determination thereafter *(see People v Lora,*162 AD2d 719 [1990]).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions.

Chambers, J.P, Miller, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.