alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# December to bring building access changes

/ Published Nov. 27, 2019
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
On Dec. 1, the Defense Supply Center Columbus will change the way individuals will access buildings.  In keeping with Department of Defense directives to move to one card for access, DSCC Security and Emergency Services will be deactivating the LENEL building badges currently being used for building access.  After this date, DSCC personnel will use their Common Access Card for building or room access.   

DSCC Security and Emergency Services ceased issuing LENEL cards on Oct. 1 for CAC renewals or initial issue. Earlier in the year, all access card readers were replaced with readers capable of reading the CAC, and the majority of DSCC personnel CACs have been updated so they can be read by these card readers.

CACs have been programmed for door access but it’s highly recommended that DSCC personnel test their CAC on building card readers prior to Dec. 1 to ensure their CAC has been updated and works. Security personnel recommend you begin to place your LENEL card in your pocket or purse and only have your CAC available. 

Personnel who experience difficulties with using their CAC to gain building access should go to the DSCC Visitor Control Center’s Pass and ID section to get their card updated. 

After Dec. 1, associates should drop their LENEL card in boxes located in the lobbies of Buildings 20 and 21 or hand it to the officer in the lobby of Building 58.

HOW TO USE THE NEW CARD READERS

The new card readers have a keypad and a slot. Inserting the card into the slot is the best method. It may take up to a second or two for the reader to read the card.  The CAC has much more data than the LENEL card and must process through that data.  Please be patient. Once the system turns green, your card has been successfully read and you can remove the CAC from the reader.

REMINDERS

• Associates should not leave their CAC in their computer.  Always carry the card with you.  If an associate leaves their card in their computer, they will not be able to get into the building. 

• Piggy-backing on another associate entering the building is a security violation. If an associate leaves their CAC in their computer, it’s best to contact a coworker to bring the card to them.
# Highly recognized leader and subject matter expert awarded DLA Aviation September Leadership Award

/ Published Dec. 21, 2021
RICHMOND, Va., 
Christy Crumpler, branch chief in the Industrial Plant Equipment Services Division in the Engineering Directorate at Defense Logistics Agency Aviation in Richmond, Virginia, was awarded the DLA Aviation Leadership Award for September.

This award recognizes DLA Aviation leaders who exemplify the four leadership traits deemed by the agency as the characteristics needed to be a good leader. These traits are referred to as the four dimensions of transformative leadership: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. 

“I was very surprised to receive the leadership award for September,” Crumpler said. “Nevertheless, it was nice to be recognized for my hard work as a leader.” 

David Theriot, IPES division chief, nominated Crumpler stating she is most deserving of this award because she is one of the most dedicated chiefs that he knows. 

“Christy is a great leader,” Theriot said. “She is willing to help anyone regardless of who they are or what they can do for her. She lives by the belief that everyone’s input matters.”

According to Theriot, Crumpler is a highly recognized leader and subject matter expert in all acquisition process areas. During the rating period, she guided her industrial plant equipment services contracting team comprised of 17 acquisition professionals to award and administer contracts totaling $86.4 million in fiscal 2020. She saw continued success throughout fiscal 2021 as well with the awarding and modifying of contracts which totaled $101.7 million. 

“Christy maintained the highest standard in her contract quality reviews, resulting in a 99% compliance rate,” Theriot said. “Her compliance rate surpasses DLA Aviation’s standard rate of 96.25%. She guides not by metrics alone, but also her traits as a leader. She is always encouraging creative and innovative approaches to solving problems.”

Crumpler stated that there were times during the rating-period when being a leader was challenging; however, she’s glad that she was able to push through, meet deadlines and still get the job done in accordance with all regulations. 

“Our contract quality reviews have been outstanding, and this could not be accomplished without the hard-working team we have in the Industrial Plant Equipment Services Division,” Crumpler said. 

“Christy is a high-energy, high-integrity acquisition professional who inspires teamwork, collaboration and alignment toward mission and business centric goals,” Theriot said. “She puts others before herself and strives for the betterment of DLA’s workforce and believes in her people and their capabilities. She is a vital and extraordinary leader in our division and a dedicated role model to her employees.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-24-1996
<CASH>                                           4,456
<SECURITIES>                                   303,136
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,242,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                    58,815
<INVENTORY>                                  3,771,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,548,772
<PP&E>                                       5,671,869
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,456,141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,764,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,941,311
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       362,715
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,285,574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,764,500
<SALES>                                     10,438,442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,438,442
<CGS>                                        7,567,572
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,567,572
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,991,030
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                879,840
<INCOME-TAX>                                   299,145
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            580,695
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   580,695
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
#### Com. v. Jackson

10/14/2015

288 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 111 A.3d 1187
#### In the Matter of Jason Phillips, Appellant, v Anthony Annucci, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[53 NYS3d 448]

*1674Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Michael M. Mohun, A.J.), entered December 22, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to annul a determination finding him guilty, following a tier III hearing, of violating inmate rules 101.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B] [2] [i] [engaging in sexual acts]), 106.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B] [7] [i] [refusing a direct order]), and 180.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B] [26] [i] [violating a visitation procedure]). Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing the petition.

At the outset, with regard to petitioner’s contention that Supreme Court erred in determining that the record of the administrative hearing was sufficient to permit meaningful judicial review even in the absence of a certain videotape that was misplaced following the hearing and determination, we note that the videotape has since been found by respondent and has been forwarded to us for our in camera review. This is thus not a case in which respondent has failed to provide a complete record of the administrative proceedings *(see*CPLR 7804 [e]), thereby precluding meaningful review of the determination and warranting a granting of the petition and an annulment of the determination (see *generally Matter of Tolliver v Fischer,*125 AD3d 1023, 1023-1024 [2015], *lv denied*25 NY3d 908 [2015]; *Matter of Farrell v New York State Off. of the Attorney Gen.,*108 AD3d 801, 801-802 [2013]).

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the court did not err in concluding that the Hearing Officer was not biased against him and that the determination did not flow from such alleged bias (see *Matter of Jones v Annucci,*141 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2016]; *Matter of Barnes v Annucci,*140 AD3d 1779, 1779 [2016]; *Matter of Colon v Fischer,*83 AD3d 1500, 1501-1502 [2011]; see *also Matter of Green v Sticht,*124 AD3d 1338, 1339 [2015], *lv denied*26 NY3d 906 [2015]). Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his contention that the Hearing Officer improperly excluded him from the hearing room, and we therefore have no discretionary power to reach that contention *(see generally Matter of Gray v Annucci,*144 AD3d 1613, 1614 [2016]; *Matter of Sabino v Hulihan,*105 AD3d 1426, 1426 [2013]; *Matter of Nelson v Coughlin,*188 AD2d 1071, 1071 [1992], *appeal dismissed*81 NY2d 834 [1993]).

Present—Whalen, P.J., Carni, NeMoyer, Curran and Troutman, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15356]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 09/09-0414]


Critical Capital Growth Fund, L.P.; Notice of Issuance of a Small 
Business Investment Company License

    On December 29, 1997, an application was filed by Critical Capital 
Growth Fund, L.P. at 17 East St. Francis Drake, Suite 230, Larkspur, 
California 94939, with the Small Business Administration (SBA) pursuant 
to Section 107.300 of the Regulations governing small business 
investment companies (13 CFR 107.300 (1997)) for a license to operate 
as a small business investment company.
    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Section 301(c) of the 
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, after having 
considered the application and all other pertinent information, SBA 
issued License No. 09/09-0414 on May 4, 1998, to Critical Capital 
Growth Fund, L.P. to operate as a small business investment company.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, Small 
Business Investment Companies)

    Dated: May 8, 1998.
Harry E. Haskins,
Acting Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 98-15356 Filed 6-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
|                                                                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                      
|View History:                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                                    
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to South Korea (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                                    
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to South Korea (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                    

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan   | Feb  | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul   | Aug   | Sep | Oct   | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----- | ---- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | ----- | --- | ----- | --- | ---
|2022                                                                                                                              |       |      |     |     |     |     | 22.74 | 30.33 |     | 36.91 |     |    
|2023                                                                                                                              | 33.03 |      |     |     |     |     |       |       |     | 10.16 |     |    
|2024                                                                                                                              |       | 9.73 |     |     |     |     |       |       |     |       |     |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
2017-0723.

#### Rock v. Bracy.

In Habeas Corpus. On petitioner’s motion to consolidate. Motion denied as moot.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eldrick Cole, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 584]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J., on pretrial motions and plea; Patricia M. Núñez, J., at sentencing), rendered May 1, 2014, convicting defendant of *663criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, and order, same court (Maxwell Wiley, J.), entered March 24, 2016, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate judgment, unanimously affirmed.

We conclude that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). We *agree*with defendant that his first attorney should have made a timely motion to suppress the stolen credit cards recovered from defendant’s wallet, based on the facts known to the attorney at the time he made his omnibus motion. .However, the record, as expanded by way of the CPL 440.10 motion, does not establish any reasonable likelihood that.defendant ultimately would have prevailed on the suppression theory he claims should have been advanced by counsel *(see e.g. People v Evans,*16 NY3d 571, 576 [2011]). An attorney cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to “make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success” *(People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004]).

While defendant asserts that the cards were removed from the wallet as the result of the search of a closed container without the requisite exigent circumstances *(see People v Jimenez,*22 NY3d 717 [2014]), the facts set forth in support of defendant’s own motion to vacate the judgment actually describe what appears to have been a lawful stationhouse inspection of an arrestee’s personal effects *(see People v Perel,*34 NY2d 462, 465-468 [1974]; *see also Illinois v Lafayette,*462 US 640 [1983]). Although such a search may be described as an “inventory” search, it is sometimes also described as “incident” to an arrest *(see e.g. People v Greenwald,*90 AD2d 668, 668 [4th Dept 1982] [“The subsequent search of effects found on the person is then but a lesser-related intrusion incident to the arrest already effected”]). Thus, we do not find that the People waived this issue by way of any imprecise language in their affirmation in opposition to the CPL article 440 motion describing the circumstances of, and justification for, the examination of the contents of defendant’s wallet. In any event, had defendant’s original trial counsel made a suppression motion, the People would have been free to argue any theory supported by the evidence, and the record before us provides no reason to believe that the motion would have succeeded.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.
# Navy shares maternity uniform pilot program ‘best practices’ with DLA, services at roadshow

/ Published July 29, 2022
PENSACOLA, Fla, 
Representatives from Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support’s Clothing and Textiles supply chain visited the Navy Exchange Service Command South East Distribution Center in Pensacola, Florida, July 13, to learn about the service’s best practices implementing the maternity pilot program.

DLA is spearheading the Congress-directed program to provide pregnant service members maternity uniforms at no cost, said C&T Division Chief of the Operational Clothing and Individual Equipment Customer Cell Eboni Martin. Martin attended the visit along with C&T Director Air Force Col. Matthew T. Harnly and Deputy Director David Johns.

NEXCOM hosted the Navy MPP Roadshow to share best practices of its implementation with DLA and other military services, including representatives from U.S. Army Logistics, HQDA G-4, and the Air Force Financial Management and Comptroller Headquarters.

The Navy is the first military service fully operational with the MPP as they leveraged an existing uniform issuance process, Martin said.

“Some services give enlisted [service members] allowances for their maternity uniforms, and officers have to pay for them out of pocket, so this would provide a program that would give everyone equity,” Martin said.

Once a pregnant sailor submits a request to participate in the voluntary program, NEXCOM issues the uniform items and after no longer needed, the uniforms are cleaned, tailored, and reissued.

Within this process the Navy is testing if the MPP can provide cost savings, however the efficacy of the MPP program may not be contingent on it’s fiscal return on investment, as their goal is to do what is best for sailors, according to the Navy MPP Operation Brief.

Most service members require maternity uniforms for about five months of their pregnancy, and most uniforms last up to 24 months with normal wear, Martin explained.

Navy maternity uniform items include service dress blue and white coats and trousers, Navy working uniform type III blouses and trousers and insignia.

During the visit attendees also toured the warehouse to view uniform item packing.

Within the pilot program DLA will continue to provide uniform items, collect data and ultimately present findings to Congress to determine if it’s a viable program to fund, Martin said.
#### In the Matter of Imaani A. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Rafiyq A., Appellant. (And Another Proceeding.)

[51 NYS3d 892]

Appeal by the father from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Kings County (Ann E. O’Shea, J.), dated March 3, 2016. The order, after a fact-finding hearing, inter alia, found that the father neglected the subject child.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 alleging, inter alia, that the father neglected the subject child. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court determined that the father neglected the child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment. The father appeals.

*846“At a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject child has been abused or neglected” *(Matter of Kyra S. [Kirtan D.S.],*128 AD3d 970, 971 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Matter of Era O. [Emmanuel O.],*145 AD3d 895, 896-897 [2016]). Here, contrary to the father’s contention, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Family Court’s finding that he neglected the child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment on her *(see*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f| [i] [B]; *Matter of Era O. [Emmanuel O.],*145 AD3d at 897-898; *Matter of Ishaq B. [Lea B.],*121 AD3d 889, 890 [2014]; *Matter of Amerriah S. [Kadiatou Y.J,*100 AD3d 1006, 1006-1007 [2012]; *Matter of Justyce M. [Shavon E.],*77 AD3d 1407, 1408 [2010]; *cf. Matter of Justin O.,*28 AD3d 877, 878-879 [2006]).

Hall, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
---

---

# Exhibit 15.7

CONSENT

We hereby consent to the reference to
our valuation of Series B Debentures of Plaza Centers N.V. as of December 31
2008 in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elbit Imaging Ltd. for the year ended December
31, 2008 and to the incorporation by reference of this Annual Report in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-117509, No. 333-130852 and No. 333-136684 and
No. 333-152820) filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd.

This consent is not to be construed
as an admission that we are an expert or that we are a person whose consent is required to
be filed with the Annual Report under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

|/s/
 Financial Immunities Ltd.
|--------------------------------------------

Rehovot, Israel 
June 25, 2009



---

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

            SUBSIDIARIES OF SOUTHWEST BANCORPORATION OF TEXAS, INC.


1.  Southwest Holding Delaware, Inc.                               Delaware
2.  Southwest Bank of Texas National Association*               United States
3.  Mitchell Mortgage Company L.L.C.**                              Texas
4.  SWBT Insurance Agency, Inc.**                                   Texas
5.  SWBT Securities, Inc.**                                         Texas
6.  Southwest/Catalyst Capital, Ltd. (99% ownership)**              Texas


 *  Subsidiary of Southwest Holding Delaware, Inc.
**  Subsidiary of Southwest Bank of Texas National Association
No. 10-5362.

#### Henry Pierce, Petitioner v. City of Mullins Police Department, et al.

562 U.S. 917, 131 S. Ct. 283,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7100.

178 L. Ed. 2d 186,

October 4, 2010.

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

*187Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 360.