alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2623 

To require search and rescue dogs to be treated in the same manner as 

seeing-eye dogs in the event of a federally declared disaster, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2019 

Mr. TAYLOR (for himself, Miss RICE of New York, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. 

FITZPATRICK, Mr. NORCROSS, Mr. GOTTHEIMER, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. 

PANETTA, and Mr. WALTZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require search and rescue dogs to be treated in the 

same manner as seeing-eye dogs in the event of a federally declared disaster, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Search and Rescue 

5 Dog Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SEARCH AND RESCUE DOGS. 

7 In the case of any major disaster or emergency de8 clared by the President under the Robert T. Stafford DisVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:35 May 18, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2623.IH H2623

pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2623 IH

1 aster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

2 5121 et seq.), and with respect to any area within a dec3 laration under such Act or while in transit to any such 

4 area, any search and rescue dog certified pursuant to reg5 ulations and requirements issued by the Administrator of 

6 the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall be 

7 treated in the same manner as a service animal is treated 

8 pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

9 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and its implementing regula10 tions at 28 CFR 35.136 and 36.302. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
# Vehicle Management maintains sortie-generating assets during RF-A 22-1

/ Published May 13, 2022
EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska, 
During RED FLAG-Alaska, there is a significant increase in flightline operations where aircraft refueling vehicles are in constant demand and fire trucks are always on standby in case of an emergency. The Airmen from the 354th Logistics Readiness Squadron Vehicle Management are responsible for maintaining these vehicles.

Vehicle Management currently directs maintenance operations for a 673 vehicle fleet including 45 emergency response, aircraft refueling vehicles and 82 assigned mechanics.

“For RF-A 22-1, there are expected to be 1,763 sorties and 4.5 million gallons of fuel delivered,” said U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Kyle Johnson, 354th LRS noncommissioned officer in charge of Firetruck and Refueling Maintenance. “The fire truck and refueling sections have put in extra hours prior to the exercise to make sure the fleet is operational.”

In order to develop combat capabilities, the exercise also provides training for support personnel in sustainment of large-force deployed air operations. Taking on the challenge, Vehicle Management has established two shifts for continuous coverage for 15.5 hours per day and a 24 hour standby.

“We have sustained a 97% 24 hour return rate for mobile maintenance operations,” said Johnson. “This is thanks to the exceptional team that we have here that enables flying operations. Without this shop, aircraft refueling operations would cease to exist.”

Johnson also expressed that despite on-base and local community resource limitations, their mechanics have been successfully maintaining sortie-generating assets. As soon as a vehicle is turned in for service, Johnson’s team springs into action to ensure every vehicle is returned as quickly as possible.

“Vehicle Management is crucial to mission accomplishment,” said Johnson. “The local economy has limited capabilities to assist in parts and equipment acquisition so our skillset is crucial for maintaining many of the vehicles on base.”

For Senior Airman Ryan Moore, 354th LRS Vehicle Management/Fire truck and Refueling Maintenance journeyman, there’s nothing more rewarding than seeing their hard work pay off.

“Every time I hear an aircraft take off, I just keep in mind that our time spent maintaining refueling aircraft is making that possible,” Moore said.

*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Eielson Air Force Base website.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001064048
<NAME> DIAMOND BRANDS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,099
<INVENTORY>                                     26,624
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,226
<PP&E>                                          36,987
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,878
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 105,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,296
<BONDS>                                        178,249
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (98,350)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   105,775
<SALES>                                         26,384
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,384
<CGS>                                           18,220
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (83)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        37
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (120)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (120)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steve Charles, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 903]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zayas, J.), dated June 17, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his request for a downward departure from the presumptive risk level three. The defendant failed to establish that his deportation was, “as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor” *(People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d 112, 128 [2011]; *see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]; *People v Garcia,*
      *722144 AD3d 650, 651 [2016]; *People v Rubi,*132 AD3d 650 [2015]; *People v Leshchenko,*127 AD3d 833 [2015]; *People v Ciudadreal,*125 AD3d 950, 951 [2015]). Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure from the presumptive risk level, and he was properly designated a level three sex offender.

Rivera, J.P., Hall, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vincente Alvarez, Appellant.

[57 NYS3d 405]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), dated November 25, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed him 10 points under risk factor 12 for not accepting responsibility. The case summary states that during the defendant’s interviews with the Probation Department and *646the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision counselors, he denied his guilt. Therefore, the court properly concluded that the defendant had not genuinely accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct *(see People v Benitez,*140 AD3d 1140, 1140-1141 [2016]). In any event, deducting the 10 points assessed under risk factor 12 from the total points assessed against the defendant would not alter his presumptive risk level *(see People v Noble,*146 AD3d 824, 824 [2017]; *People v George,*142 AD3d 1059, 1060-1061 [2016]).

“A downward departure from a sex offender’s presumptive risk level generally is only warranted where there exists a mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is not otherwise adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines” *(People v Watson,*95 AD3d 978, 979 [2012]; *see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). Although “advanced age” may constitute a basis for a downward departure (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]), the defendant, who was 47 years old at the time of the SORA determination, failed to establish the facts in support of that ground by a preponderance of the evidence (see *People v Rocano-Quintuna,*149 AD3d 1114 [2017]; *People v Garcia,*144 AD3d 650, 651 [2016]; *People v Santiago,*137 AD3d 762, 765 [2016]). Further, the defendant failed to establish that his expected deportation was, “as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor” *(People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d 112, 128 [2011]; see *People v Rubi,*132 AD3d 650, 650 [2015]; *People v Leshchenko,*127 AD3d 833, 833 [2015]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s request for a downward departure and designated him a level three sex offender.

Dillon, J.P., Austin, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5987.

#### Leothis West, Petitioner v. Anna E. Cabral.

562 U.S. 943, 131 S. Ct. 364,

178 L. Ed. 2d 235,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7179.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 373 Fed. Appx. 79.
# C_2013359EN.01000601.xml

| 7.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 10 October 2013 — Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others v Fipa Group and Others

(Case C-534/13)

2013/C 359/08

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero della Salute, Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA)

Appellants:

Respondents: Fipa Group srl, Ivan srl, TWS Automation srl

Respondents:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the European Union principles relating to the environment, laid down in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of 21 April 2004 (Articles 1 and 8(3) and recitals 13 and 24 in the preamble) — specifically, the ‘polluter pays’principle, the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified at source as a matter of priority — preclude national legislation, such as the rules set out in Articles 244, 245 and 253 of Legislative Decree No 152 of 3 April 2006, which, in circumstances in which it is established that a site is contaminated and in which it is impossible to identify the polluter or to have that person adopt the restoration measures, do not permit the administrative authority to require the owner (who is not responsible for the pollution) to implement the emergency safety and decontamination measures, merely attributing to that person financial liability limited to the value of the site once the decontamination measures have been carried out?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56).

1

---
EXHIBIT 32





Section 1350 Certifications





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Shearson American REIT, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), hereby certify that:





To my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the period ended  September 30, 2012 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: August 22, 2013

/s/ John D. WilliamsJohn D. WilliamsChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





Date: August 22, 2013

/s/ John D. WilliamsJohn D. WilliamsChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1373** 

ROGER A. JOHNSON, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
NEXT DAY BLINDS CORPORATION; GREAT WINDOWS SERVICES, LLC , Defendants

- Appellees

.

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

. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. ( 1:09

- cv - 02069

- WMN )

Submitted : November 25, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Boniface K

. Cobbina , LAW OFFICES OF BONIFACE K. COBBINA , P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Meredith S. Campbell , Stacey L

. Schwaber , SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER, P

. A ., Potom ac, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roger A. Johnson, Jr **.** , appeals the district court ’ s
order s dismissing his employment discrimination action and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson v. Next Day Blinds Corp. , No. 1:09

- cv - 02069

- WMN (D. Md. Nov. 1,
2012; Feb 21, 2013 ). We dispense w ith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
2016-1728.

#### State v. Brown.

Cuyahoga App. No. 103491, 2016-Ohio-7221.
# Monarch DFAC leads the way in automating food preparation

/ Published Dec. 26, 2021
TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., 
Travis Air Force Base’s Monarch dining facility is the first in the DOD to acquire “Alfred," an automated food preparation robot designed to improve production and quality of operations, reduce food waste and lower risks of viral and microbial transmissions.

“Alfred” was designed and created by Dexai Robotics, a Boston-based startup company that was contracted by the Defense Logistics Agency. The company uses hygienic robot arms to automate food preparation activities.

“As we are the first in the DOD to receive this revolutionary robotics technology, the main purpose for ‘Alfred’ is proof of concept,” said Maj. Hewko Tyler, 60th Force Support Squadron operations officer. “Will ‘Alfred’ be able to provide the reduction in food waste, improvements in sanitation and manning benefits as projected? We are excited to find out and be on the forefront of the future of food service.”

The Monarch DFAC has many operations from within the kitchen, so their staff has to have a strategic plan to maximize their airmen’s time.

According to Tech Sgt. Hurtado, Monarch DFAC manager, one of the benefits of having the robot is that it can free up an individual to focus on a heavier task like manning the grill, preparing an entrée or responding to flight kitchen meals.

“I think the military can benefit from something of this sort [robotics],” said Hurtado. The Airmen are tasked with so many things every single day as far as getting the mission done, training, taking leave, and focusing on our families. We get pulled in so many different directions that anywhere where we can free up some time is a benefit to us.”

The COVID-19 pandemic caused a lot of safety and health concerns in the food industry. The robot’s proof of concept touchless user interface can alleviate some of the customer’s worries.

“It lowers the transmission risks of germs and diseases thus improving the health and safety of the food our customers eat,” said Hewko.

According to Yuki Yamada, Dexai Robotics Chef de Technologie, the most important features currently are consistency and safety, to alleviate concerns with self-serving salad bars and crowded dining facilities.

During his visit to the Monarch DFAC, Yamada highlighted the exciting opportunity with this pilot program is the chance to shape the product, given that it's the first installation. Whatever the DLA and the Air Force find to be the most appealing feature — maybe it’s the speed, the safety, or the sanitation — the Dexai team can focus on that as part of their product development and improve long term success since guidance from the field is critical to shape the product’s most needed capabilities.

If the Monarch DFAC achieves success with “Alfred,” other military bases will follow their lead. The proposal is to roll out and install 10 robots in different military DFACs.

*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Travis Air Force Base website.*
EXHIBIT 31.1RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002I, Sheldon C. Fenton certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Veridien Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth physical quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: May 19, 2006    /s/ Sheldon C. Fenton    Sheldon C. Fenton,       Chief Executive Officer  
17
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 9902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03161]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

DOE Response to Recommendation 2012-2 of the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board, Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas Safety 
Strategy; Correction

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice; Correction

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) published a document in the 
Federal Register of January 22, 2013, announcing the DOE's Response to 
Recommendation 2012-2 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 
Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas Safety Strategy. This document 
corrects an error in that notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or 
copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should 
be directed to Steven Petras at steven.petras@hq.doe.gov.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of January 22, 2013, in FR Doc. 2013-01132, 
78 FR 4404, please make the following correction:
    On page 4404, first column, add a DATES section before ADDRESSES to 
read as follows:

DATES: Comments, data, views, or arguments concerning the Secretary's 
response are due on or before February 21, 2013.

Mari-Josette Campagnone,
Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
Board, Office of Health, Safety and Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-03161 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
No. 10-6058.

#### Charles Randall Kay, Petitioner v. Texas.

562 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 513,

178 L. Ed. 2d 380,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8484.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, denied.