alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Ernest Harrison, Sr., Respondent, v Capricia McClellan, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 548]

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Hal B. Greenwald, J.), dated July 30, 2015. The order, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition to modify an order of custody so as to award him sole physical custody of the child.

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

By order dated May 6, 2003, the parties were awarded joint legal custody of their child and the mother was awarded sole physical custody. In March 2014, the father filed a petition to modify the order so as to award him sole physical custody of the child. In an order dated July 30, 2015, the Family Court, after a hearing, and after conducting in-camera interviews with the child, granted the father’s petition and awarded him sole physical custody. The mother appeals.

Where modification of an existing custody arrangement is sought, the petitioner must make a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to protect the best interests of the child (see *Matter of Scott v Powell,*146 AD3d 964, 965 [2017]; *Matter of Zall v Theiss,*144 AD3d 831, 832 [2016]; *Matter of Lao v Gonzales,*130 AD3d 624, 624-625 [2015]). The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see *Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171-173 [1982]; *Anonymous 2011-1 v Anonymous 2011-2,*136 AD3d 946, 948 [2016]; *McAvoy v Hannigan,*107 AD3d 960, 962-963 [2013]). Since the Family Court’s determination with respect to custody and visitation depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, deference is accorded to its findings in this regard, and such findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Estrada v Palacios,*148 AD3d 804 [2017]; *Matter of Hargrove v Langenau,*138 AD3d 846, 847 [2016]; *Matter of Saldana v Lopresti,*133 AD3d 669, 670 [2015]; *Matter of Mack v Kass,*115 AD3d 748, 749 [2014]).

Here, contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court’s determination that there was a change in circumstances requiring a transfer of physical custody to the father in order to ensure the child’s best interests has a sound and substantial basis in the record and, therefore, will not be disturbed *(see*
      *724
      *Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d at 173-174; *Matter of DeVita v DeVita,*143 AD3d 981, 982-983 [2016]; *Matter of Rosenblatt v Rosenblatt,*129 AD3d 1091, 1092-1093 [2015]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5943.

#### Angel Mercado, Petitioner v. Illinois.

562 U.S. 984, 131 S. Ct. 419,

178 L. Ed. 2d 327,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8252.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 397 Ill. App. 3d 622, 336 Ill. Dec. 900, 921 N.E.2d 756.
#### Thomas A. Leahy, Appellant, v U.S. National Bank Association, Respondent.

[63 NYS3d 862]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered February 15, 2017, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint fails to state causes of action for negligence and negligent misrepresentation, given the absence of allegations that would establish a duty owed to plaintiff by defendant or a special relationship of trust or confidence between the parties *(see Kimmell v Schaefer,*89 NY2d 257, 263 [1996]; *Ravenna v Christie’s Inc.,*289 AD2d 15 [1st Dept 2001]).

Concur—Friedman, J.R, Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Constar International Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Walter S. Sobon, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; 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: March 31, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    WALTER S. SOBON
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                        |  | Walter S. Sobon Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# Troop Support dishes out Christmas turkey, cakes and pies 

/ Published Dec. 23, 2022
PHILADELPHIA, 
As the Department of Defense’s premier logistics agency, the Defense Logistics Agency, specifically DLA Troop Support, relies on early planning to meet warfighter needs across the globe. 

Even though orders are generally forecasted by June for the winter holidays, technicians at DLA Troop Support Subsistence have the flexibility and experience to support the warfighter’s needs as they emerge.  

DLA Troop Support relies on long-standing relationships with vendors around the globe and an industry experience spanning over half a century to meet the requirements of commanders wherever they are stationed. 

This Christmas, military members will be treated to even more dessert and eggnog than what they saw at Thanksgiving. From 40,270 lbs. of pies and cakes in November to 45,700 lbs. by the end of December. Troops will get a whopping 136 more cases-- that’s 408 gals—of eggnog for Christmas from 933 gals at Thanksgiving. 

Thanks to early preparation, the bulk of the holiday orders proceed well on schedule and much of the Christmas orders are typically received before December.  

“Most of the Christmas items arrive at warehouses alongside the Thanksgiving orders so the experience of delivering Christmas supplies is different,” said Lauren Austin, Customer Operations Branch Chief at DLA Troop Support. “But our team still closely monitors airlift and regular surface shipments to ensure all the other orders arrive in time for Christmas.” 

This year, DLA Troop Support customers included those who are currently forward-deployed in Europe—trained and equipped for a variety of missions to deter aggression and to reassure and defend Allies. 

“Being away from home over the holiday season is difficult, and the servicemembers are always grateful to have meal that brings them a little bit of comfort while away from friends and family over the holidays,” said Austin. “Customers expressed gratitude to us for ensuring holiday meal items were delivered in time for their holiday.”

DLA Troop Support, located in Philadelphia, is a major subordinate command of the Defense Logistics Agency, with a global presence including offices in Europe & Africa and the Pacific regions. It is responsible for four supply chains that provide our nation’s military and government partners with: food and feeding equipment; clothing and textile items; construction and equipment materiel; and medical materiel and pharmaceuticals.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 STATEMENT OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
 
 
 Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, John L. Petersen, chief accounting officer of Tamboril Cigar Company (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:
 
 The Company's Form 10-KSB Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ John L. Petersen
 John L. Petersen, Chief Accounting Officer
 Dated: March __, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2306 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2306

             To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 21 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

Mr. Metzenbaum introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

SECTION 1. TITLE.

    This Act shall be referred to as the ``Securities Fraud Fairness 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.

    Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
78j(b)) is amended by inserting ``, or to aid and abet the use or 
employ of any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance,'' before 
``in contravention''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall be deemed to have taken effect 
on the date of enactment of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
                                 <all>
```
# Employees encouraged to verify disability status in MyBiz

/ Published Oct. 11, 2023
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency employees are being asked to verify and update their disability status in MyBiz so the agency has an accurate account of the workforce.

Federal agencies are required by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to take steps toward hiring a workforce made up of 12% of employees with a disability and 2% with targeted disabilities. DLA data shows the agency exceeds that goal at 15.72% with disabilities and 3.62% with targeted disabilities, but Monique Ray, a disability program manager for the DLA Equal Employment Opportunity Office, suspects the numbers are higher.

DLA records on employees who are military veterans indicate about 15% of veteran employees have a 30% disability, she said.

“Most individuals with a 30% disability are likely to have a targeted disability, so we’re much higher than 3.62% just based on our veteran population alone. We’re probably well over 15%,” Ray continued.

Targeted disabilities include conditions like traumatic brain injury and mobility impairment as well as deafness or serious difficulty hearing and significant disfigurement. Other disabilities range from diabetes and gastrointestinal disorders to cancer.

One in four people in the U.S. and about one in six of the world population have a disability, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization. Ray noted that an individual’s status can change over time due to newly developed health issues or age. Employees may update their disability status at any time.

Preconceived notions could prevent employees from reporting their disability, Ray added.

“I think a lot of people have a misconception of what their disability information is used for and don’t fully understand that it is used as an aggregate,” she said. “Self-identification is voluntary and confidential.” 

The numbers are used to help DLA recruit and retain a diverse and inclusive workforce. It’s also used to take advantage of funding for assistive technology and other resources that are used to support people with disabilities and assist them with doing their jobs and enjoying the benefits and privileges of the workplace. Though not all employees with disabilities require assistive technology like special computer equipment to do their jobs, the Defense Department’s Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program provides such adaptive technologies based on what percent of an agency’s employees have disabilities.

“CAP is a great program that we use to help our employees, and how much funding we get for those free resources is based on the numbers we report,” Ray said.

For more information, please contact your local servicing Human Resources office or Disability Program Coordinator. To verify and update your disability status, visit MyBiz, click on “Personal” at the bottom of the page, then select the “Disability” menu.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16292]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

 Food and Drug Administration
 [Docket No. 98N-0192]


 Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB 
Approval

  AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

  ACTION:  Notice.

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

  SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Establishment and Product License 
Applications'' has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).

  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  JonnaLynn P. Capezzuto, Office of 
Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659.

  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  In the Federal Register of April 8, 1998 
(63 FR 17183), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 
section 3507 of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507). An agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB 
control number 0910-0124. The approval expires on June 30, 1998.

    Dated: June 9, 1998.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 98-16292 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
EX-32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF JAMES H. ALEXANDER AND DANNIE SHAVER

                        SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report of Everlert, Inc.
("Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to their knowledge:

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

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



Dated: April 26, 2004                  By: /s/ James H. Alexander
                                       James H. Alexander, President



Dated: April 26, 2004                  By: /s/ Dannie Shaver
                                       Dannie Shaver,
                                       Secretary/Treasurer
No. 10-5009.

#### Herbert Morton, Petitioner v. Millicent Warren, Warden.

562 U.S. 898, 131 S. Ct. 226,

178 L. Ed. 2d 151,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6404.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 09-11405.

#### Jason Best, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 878, 131 S. Ct. 192,

178 L. Ed. 2d 116,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6677.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
No. 10-6126.

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

562 U.S. 945, 131 S. Ct. 369,

178 L. Ed. 2d 239,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7699.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
No. 10-5314.

#### Kenneth R. Roberts, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 275,

178 L. Ed. 2d 181,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6861.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.

Same case below, 30 So. 3d 503.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2011 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  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: February 11, 2011/s/ Michael R. Feinsod
Michael R. Feinsod
Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 24, 2021

No. 04-20-00588-CR

Gary Thomas CRAYTON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR9248

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On March 19, 2021, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief 

and a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v. State, 

573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In counsel’s certification to this 

court, Appellant’s counsel explained that he took the following steps:

• notified Appellant that counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to 

withdraw, and provided Appellant with a copy of the documents;

• advised Appellant of his right to review the appellate record and file a pro se 

brief;

• provided Appellant with a copy of the appellate record; and

• advised Appellant of his right to seek discretionary review in the Court of 

Criminal Appeals if this court determines his appeal is frivolous. 

See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Ex parte Owens, 206 

S.W.3d 670, 674 n.28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 688–89 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2006). 

The State filed a letter conditionally waiving its right to file a brief. 
If Appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER Appellant to do so within thirty

days of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). If Appellant files a pro se brief, the 

State may file a responsive brief not later than thirty days after the date Appellant’s pro se brief 

is filed in this court. See id. R. 38.6(b).

If this court determines Appellant’s appeal is frivolous, Appellant may file a petition for 

discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 

Appellant must file the petition with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty 

days after this court issues its judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). The petition should be 

addressed to Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, P.O. Box 12308, Austin, Texas 78711. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is held in abeyance pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of March, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2016-3987 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-165-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Remove/install 

equipment in both 

pylons

60.0 $5,100.0

0

$5,100.00 55 $280,500.00

Rototest Insp 2.0 $ 170.00 $ 170.00 55 $9,350.00

Test and run up 4.0 $ 340.00 $ 340.00 55 $18,700.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $308,550

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Modification for 

both sides 20.0 $1,700.00 149 $1,849.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
No. 10-5616.

#### Rayne Dee Wells, Jr., Petitioner v. Washington.

562 U.S. 931, 131 S. Ct. 327,

178 L. Ed. 2d 213,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7631.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, denied.

Same case below, 154 Wash. App. 1018.