alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA Distribution Albany assists in humanitarian relief to Hurricane Joaquin ravaged South Carolina

/ Published Oct. 20, 2015
ALBANY, Georgia, 

South Carolina is gradually moving into recovery mode following widespread flooding from an early October storm that dumped as much as 26 inches of rain across the state's midland and coastal areas.

In support of the Army’s Logistics Readiness Center, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Albany, Ga., stepped up to provide support to the state of South Carolina, and its residents. 

“Our team here at Albany, has worked tirelessly to get shipments out same day received for urgent requirements, “ said DLA Distribution Albany, Ga., director Rita Varner.

The team received their first order for over 5,000 Meals Ready to Eat on Monday, Oct. 5. Subsequent orders were received through Monday, Oct. 11 totaling more than 38,000 cases of MRE’s or 22 truckloads shipped to Fort Jackson, S.C.

Only indirectly related to Hurricane Joaquin, located well off the coast at the time, the historic flooding rain was characterized by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as a 1,000-year storm event. This means that in any given year there is a 1 in 1,000 chance of encountering rainfall totals of this scale. Even before the rains subsided, overflowing waterways quickly overwhelmed communities across the state, washing out roads and bridges and compromising nearly 30 dams, most of which are small, earthen structures. 

According to experts, it was the combination of several weather patterns that came together in just the right way to produce the rainstorm the size of which has never before been experienced in this part of the Southern United States. Meteorologists say a strengthening non-tropical storm in the south, a strong area of high pressure in Canada and converging tropical moisture from Hurricane Joaquin all joined forces to create the extraordinary rains.

“Our team is consistently called upon to assist in humanitarian and natural disaster relief,” explained DLA Distribution Albany, Ga., deputy director Tony Brooks. “There are many things we do well, but contingency support is our greatest strength as a Distribution Center.”
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 8, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00367-CV PHOEBE YOUNG, Appellant V. ABIDA SULTANA, Appellee On Appeal from the 493rd District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 493-04294-2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia Appellant’s brief in this case is ove rdue. By postcard dated May 29, 2024, we informed appellant her br ief was overdue and directed appellant to file a brief within ten days. We cautione d appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not fi led a brief nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal.–2– Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

240367F.P05 /Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT PHOEBE YOUNG, Appellant
No. 05-24-00367-CV V. ABIDA SULTANA, Appellee On Appeal from the 493rd District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 493-04294- 2023. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. Justices Reichek and Goldstein participating. In accordance with this Court’s opini on of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered July 8, 2024
No. 10-6157.

#### Joe Eddie Pugh, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 946, 131 S. Ct. 371,

178 L. Ed. 2d 240,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7744.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 776.
#### Ulm I Holding Corp., Respondent, v Craig Antell, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[66 NYS3d 233]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered November 4, 2016, awarding plaintiff the aggregate amount of $439,881.85 as against defendant Craig Antell, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 10, 2016, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as against Antell, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

“Something more than a bald assertion of forgery is required to create an issue of fact contesting the authenticity of a signature. . . . Although an expert’s opinion is not required to establish a triable issue of fact regarding a forgery allegation, *586where an expert is used to counter the moving party’s prima facie proof, the expert opinion must be in admissible form and state with reasonable professional certainty that the signature at issue is not authentic” *(see Banco Popular N. Am. v Victory Taxi Mgt.,*1 NY3d 381, 384 [2004]).

Here, Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff landlord sustained its prima facie burden of showing that Antell breached the “good guy” guaranty he signed in connection with the commercial lease by providing a copy of the guaranty, which was notarized in a form consistent with Real Property Law § 309-a; an affidavit of the notary acknowledging his stamp and signature on the document; and an affidavit of Antell submitted in connection with another proceeding, acknowledging that he had signed the guaranty.

In opposition, Antell failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. He provided only a bald assertion that the signature on the guaranty was a forgery and the un-sworn report of an expert that there were differences between the signature on the guaranty and signatures on other documents. Under the circumstances here presented, the unsworn report is not in admissible form and may not be considered in opposition to the summary judgment motion, and Antell did not provide an acceptable excuse for failing to submit an expert report in admissible form (see *Bendik v Dybowski,*227 AD2d 228, 229 [1st Dept 1996]).

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.
No. 09-10938.

#### John Martin Voyles, Petitioner v. Jean Hill, Superintendent, Powder River Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 1029, 131 S. Ct. 566,

178 L. Ed. 2d 413,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8801.

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-5557.

#### Victor Perkins, Petitioner v. James Conway, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 954, 131 S. Ct. 318,

178 L. Ed. 2d 253,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7701.

October 4, 2010.

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

*254Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 596 F.3d 161.
# C_2019004EN.01002001.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Dyson v Commission

(Case T-544/13 RENV) (1)

(Directive 2010/30/EU - Indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products - Commission delegated regulation supplementing the directive - Energy labelling of vacuum cleaners - Essential element of an enabling act)

(2019/C 4/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dyson Ltd (Malmesbury, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, E. Batchelor and M. Healy, Solicitors, and A. Patsa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, K. Herrmann and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings on appeal before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings on appeal before the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

---
No. 10-5599.

#### Michael Anderson, Petitioner v. Andrew Jackson, Warden.

562 U.S. 930, 131 S. Ct. 325,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7418.

178 L. Ed. 2d 211,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16756]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service
[T.D. 98-58]


Revocation of I.N.C. Surveys Customs Gauger Approval

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of Revocation of Customs Gauger Approval.

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

SUMMARY: I.N.C. Surveys of Houston, Texas, a Customs approved gauger 
under Section 151.13 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 151.13), has 
requested that the U.S. Customs Service revokes its gauger approval. 
Accordingly, pursuant to 151.13(f) of the Customs Regulations, notice 
is hereby given that the Customs commercial gauger approval of I.N.C. 
Surveys has been revoked without prejudice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Parker, Science Officer, 
Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs Service, 1300 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 5.5-B, Washington, DC 20229 at (202) 927-
1060.

    Dated: June 9, 1998.
George D. Heavey,
Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 98-16756 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
No. 10-40.

#### Ronald Julian Hanson, et ux., Petitioners v. Gary W. B. Chang, Judge, Circuit Court of Hawaii, First Circuit, et al.

562 U.S. 891, 131 S. Ct. 247,

178 L. Ed. 2d 138,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6981.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Hawaii denied.
# Anniston distribution center welcomes new deputy commander

/ Published July 21, 2015
ANNISTON, Alabama, 
Guy Taylor has been selected as the new deputy commander of Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Anniston, Ala.

The distribution center provides distribution and industrial services for tracked combat weapons and artillery systems, serves as the Department of Defense’s small arms repository, and provides direct support to Anniston Army Depot. 

Taylor is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces non-commissioned officer, also known as the Green Berets, who has served in various special operations assignments, and deployed on multiple missions and operations during his Army career. 

Taylor began his career with DLA as the director of Operations for DLA Distribution Korea.  Later, he became a warfighter support representative for DLA Pacific Korea.

Taylor holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Sociology from Western Illinois University; and a Master of Arts Degree in Sociology from Western Illinois University. He is a graduate of two executive development program classes including LOGTECH and the advanced management course.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          12,930
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,968
<ALLOWANCES>                                       556
<INVENTORY>                                      1,555
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,114
<PP&E>                                          22,824
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 643,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,665
<BONDS>                                        408,384
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           336
<OTHER-SE>                                     142,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   643,338
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,084
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,507
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   219
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,827
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,643
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (494)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,149
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,149
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Loudeye Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence J.
Madden, 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 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; and

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

         /s/ Lawrence J. Madden
----------------------------------------------------
Lawrence J. Madden
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 31, 2004
Exhibit No. 32.1

Certification of CEO 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 DRS Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark S. Newman, Chief Executive Officer of DRS Technologies, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|/s/MARK S. NEWMANMark S. Newman Chief Executive
OfficerJune 13, 2005 |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A
SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY DRS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

---



QuickLinks
No. 10-5778.

#### Jessie St. Amant, Petitioner v. Louisiana.

562 U.S. 967, 131 S. Ct. 467,

178 L. Ed. 2d 297,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8039.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied.

Same case below, 39 So. 3d 589.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANDREW F. KARACSONYI

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1388

[ November 18, 2021 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Martin County ; Kathleen H. Roberts , Judge; L.T. Case No.

4320 19 MM 002308 A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig,

Assistant Attor ney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, G ERBER and L EVINE

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### George Peters, Appellant, v Stelios Coutsodontis, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[65 NYS3d 185]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered July 18, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Stelios Coutsodon-tis’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff George Peters and his uncle, Stelios Coutsodontis, have been involved in a lengthy dispute over stock ownership of a family shipping business, Sea Trade Maritime Corporation. In February 2005, Coutsodontis and others commenced an action against Peters and others, alleging that Peters had engaged in self-dealing. In an affidavit submitted in opposition to a motion to dismiss the complaint in the 2005 action, Coutsodontis stated that the power of attorney naming Peters as attorney-in-fact bore what he believed was a forged signature of the appointing authority. In February 2007, based on these statements, Peters brought the instant defamation action.

Supreme Court properly concluded that the alleged defamatory statements were pertinent to the 2005 action and therefore absolutely protected by the judicial proceedings privilege *(see Sexter & Warmflash, P.C. v Margrabe,*38 AD3d 163, 173 [1st Dept 2007], *abrogated on other grounds by Front, Inc. v Khalil,*24 NY3d 713 [2015]). The statement in the complaint alleging that Peters fraudulently awarded himself an employment contract, was obviously related to the fraud allegations *(see Lacher v Engel,*33 AD3d 10, 13 [1st Dept 2006]). The statement regarding the authenticity of the power of attorney related to Peters’ ability to award himself the contract, and was thus pertinent to the allegation that Peters engaged in self-dealing *(see Hadar v Pierce,*111 AD3d 439 [1st Dept 2013], *lv*
      *541
      *denied*23 NY3d 904 [2014]). Public policy favors having litigants speak freely in judicial proceedings *(see Rosenberg v MetLife, Inc.,*8 NY3d 359, 365 [2007]).

There are no facts alleged supporting a conclusion that the instant litigation is “a sham action brought solely to defame,” which would otherwise destroy the privilege *(see Flomenhaft v Finkelstein,*127 AD3d 634, 638 [1st Dept 2015]; *Lacker,*33 AD3d at 13-14). Coutsodontis prosecuted his claims in the 2005 action, opposed plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the 2005 action, and appealed the order of dismissal *(see Coutsodontis v Peters,*39 AD3d 274 [1st Dept 2007]). His failure to prevail on the 2005 action does not vitiate the privilege, since “[i]f the privilege existed only in cases that were ultimately sustained, none of the persons whose candor is protected by the rule—parties, counsel or witnesses—would feel free to express themselves” *(Lacker*at 14).

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

Concur—Richter, J.P., Webber, Gesmer and Oing, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF TUMBLEWEED,  INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                              712,030
<SECURITIES>                                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       436,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                                       1,336,824
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  2,875,734
<PP&E>                                                           29,494,443
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    3,437,330
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   32,161,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             4,293,166
<BONDS>                                                           8,605,510
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                               0
<COMMON>                                                             58,815
<OTHER-SE>                                                       15,705,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     32,161,258
<SALES>                                                          11,332,318
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 11,959,369
<CGS>                                                             3,263,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    11,094,062
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  246,342
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     618,965
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        856,261
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               (237,296)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                         (341,035)
<NET-INCOME>                                                      (578,331)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        (0.10)
        

</TABLE>