alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2468

AN ACT

To permit the Secretary of Agriculture to make

other purposes.ership, operating, or emergency loans, and foravailable certain amounts for FmHA farm own-
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2468

AN ACT

To permit the Secretary of Agriculture to make available

certain amounts for FmHA farm ownership, operating,

or emergency loans, 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,
2

S 2468 ES

1 SECTION 1. AVAILABILITY OF AMOUNTS FOR FMHA FARM

2 OWNERSHIP, OPERATING, OR EMERGENCY

3 LOANS.

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec5 retary of Agriculture—

6 (1) from the date of enactment of this Act until

7 September 30, 1994, may transfer funds so as to

8 make available—

9 (A) the amounts that would otherwise be

10 available for gross obligations for the principal

11 amount of direct farm ownership or emergency

12 loans as authorized by sections 308 and 309 of

13 the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development

14 Act (7 U.S.C. 1928 and 1929); and

15 (B) the amounts that would otherwise be

16 available for the costs of such direct farm own17 ership or emergency loans (including the cost of

18 modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of

19 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2

20 U.S.C. 661a));

21 for any gross obligations or costs of farm ownership,

22 operating, or emergency loans or credit sales, except

23 that the amounts that would otherwise be available

24 for such costs of such emergency loans may be ex25 pended only for such costs of guaranteed subsidized

26 operating loans or credit sales; and
3

S 2468 ES

1 (2) after September 30, 1994, may not expend

2 funds, or disburse any new loans, made available by

3 a transfer described in paragraph (1) for fiscal year

4 1994.

Passed the Senate September 27 (legislative day,

September 12), 1994.

Attest:

Secretary.
Site Spotlight: DLA Disposition Services Anniston
 
  **Man and woman work in a warehouse
        140205-D-xx999-001
            Delores Walker, a supply technician, and Max Volk, a material examiner and identifier, work to pack items in DLA Distribution Anniston, Ala. Photo by Bill Thomas Jr.

            SHARE IMAGE:

                Download Image
                    Image Details
                    
                    Photo By: Bill Thomas
                    
                    VIRIN: 140205-D-XX999-001** **Site Name:**DLA Disposition Services Anniston **Site Size**: Large **Location:**Anniston, Alabama **Hours of Operations:**6:30 am -3:00 pm **What services does the site provide?**Field site operation which provides disposal training to DoD customers and processes useable scrap, hazardous property, and weapons parts. Receive property on our footprint, but the contract site also receives direct shipments of bulk material. The new contract includes mutilation of property which is a new mission for the DEMIL Center. Anniston SASP is the only agency wide small arms weapons processing facility. **What are the major units supported at the site?** Centralized DEMIL Divisions (CDD) major customers serviced: Anniston Army Depot and tenants
 Warner Robins AFB
 DLA Susquehanna
 DLA Columbus
 Marine Corps Base Albany Field Site Anniston major customers services: Anniston Army Depot
 Anniston Army Depot Production and Property Book Offices
 DLA Distribution
 Army Museum Support Center
 BAE Systems
 General Dynamics and Northrup Grumman
 SAIC
 Nichols Reserve Center
 117th ARW Birmingham, AL
 USP&FO Alabama, Montgomery, AL
 187th FW Montgomery, AL
 Naval Air Station (NAS) Meridian, MS. **What are the most notable or unusual item(s) processed by the site?** DLA Disposition Services Anniston is home to one of three CDDs in DLA.  Anniston is also the only site agency wide with a small arms weapons DEMIL facility. H**ave there been any noteworthy historical items:** Sgt York Tank M247 (S/N 0001) received from Army Museum Support Center Anniston Army Depot's buffalo were in an Army.mil feature article that can be read here.
Order entered May 15, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00902-CV

DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT D/B/A

PARKLAND HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SYSTEM, Appellant

V.

HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-14542

ORDER

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

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

30, 2013.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-13-01033-CV

Gonzalo Sosa 

v.

Julio Garcia

NO. 1036389 IN THE CO CIVIL CT AT LAW NO 1 OF HARRIS COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

MT FEE

CLK RECORD

STATEWIDE EFILING

FILING

$15.00

$10.00

$53.00

$20.00

$175.00

05/20/2014

01/23/2014

12/26/2013

12/23/2013

12/23/2013

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$273.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this April 24, 2015.
No. 09-11187.

#### Brian Tucker, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 866, 131 S. Ct. 155,

178 L. Ed. 2d 93,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6706.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 363 Fed. Appx. 643.
| List      of GPS Industries, Inc. Subsidiaries                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                           |
| Subsidiaries      of Registrant                                |
|                                                           |   |
| ProShot      Golf, Inc.                                        | California |
| IGT      2000, Inc.                                            | Delaware |
| Optimal      Golf Solutions Ltd                                | Texas |
| GPS      IT, LLC                                               | Nevada |
|                                                           |
| The      following two companies are operating as GPSI Europe: |
|                                                           |
| Direct      Golf Services, Inc.                                | Registered      in England and Wales |
| Golf      Academies Ltd                                        | Registered      in England andWales |

----
#### Hazel M. Buck, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Erwin C. Buck, Deceased, and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Katrina M. Buck and Others, Infants, Appellant, v Volunteer Ambulance Corps of Bath, New York, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[769 NYS2d 763]

— Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Steuben County (Latham, J.), entered November 27, 2000, which granted the motion of defendants Volunteer Ambulance Corps of Bath, New York, Inc. and James Harvey, individually and as an officer, servant and agent of Volunteer Ambulance Corps of Bath, New York, Inc., for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and cross claim against them.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for the reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Steuben County, Latham, J. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Kehoe, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16318]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33604 (Sub-No. 1)]


Southern Switching Company--Operation Exemption--Lone Star 
Railroad, Inc.

    Southern Switching Company (SSC), a Class III rail carrier, has 
filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to operate over 
approximately 8.24 miles of railroad leased by Lone Star Railroad, Inc. 
(LSRI). The involved trackage is as follows: all Abilene, TX yard 
tracks south of the Abilene wye track and south of the east-west main 
line, including the A&S Industrial Lead from milepost 0.0 to milepost 
4.30, at Abilene, Taylor County, TX.
    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or shortly after 
May 26, 1998.
    This proceeding is related to STB Finance Docket No. 33604, Lone 
Star Railroad, Inc.--Acquisition Exemption--Union Pacific Railroad 
Company, wherein LSRI has concurrently filed a notice of exemption to 
acquire through lease the Abilene line from Union Pacific Railroad 
Company.<SUP>1</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ LSRI and SSC are commonly controlled by Gregory B. Cundiff. 
See Gregory B. Cundiff--Continuance in Control Exemption--Lone Star 
Railroad, Inc. and Southern Switching Company, Finance Docket No. 
32501 (ICC served May 27, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33604 (Sub-No. 1), must be filed with the Surface 
Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 
K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each 
pleading must be served on Thomas F. McFarland, Jr., 20 North Wacker 
Drive, Suite 1330, Chicago, IL 60606-2902.

    Decided: June 12, 1998.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16318 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2449

To modify the estate recovery provisions of the medicaid program to give

States the option to recover the costs of home and community-based

services for individuals over age 55, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 21 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Mr. FEINGOLD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To modify the estate recovery provisions of the medicaid

program to give States the option to recover the costs

of home and community-based services for individuals

over age 55, 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. MEDICAID ESTATE RECOVERIES.

4 Section 1917(b)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42

5 U.S.C. 1396p(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘consist6 ing of—’’ and all that follows and inserting the following:

7 ‘‘consisting of—
2

•S 2449 IS

1 ‘‘(i) nursing facility services and related

2 hospital and prescription drug services; and

3 ‘‘(ii) at the option of the State, any addi4 tional items or services under the State plan.’’.

5 SEC. 2. REQUIRING STATES TO REGULATE GROWTH IN THE

6 NUMBER OF NURSING FACILITY BEDS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—A nursing facility shall not receive

8 reimbursement under the medicare program under title

9 XVIII of the Social Security Act, the medicaid program

10 under title XIX of such Act, or any other Federal program

11 for services furnished with respect to any beds first oper12 ated by such facility on or after the date of the enactment

13 of this Act unless a certificate of need is issued by the

14 State with respect to such beds.

15 (b) ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE.—A certificate of

16 need may be issued by a State with respect to a geographic

17 area only if the ratio of the number of nursing facility

18 beds in such area to the total population in such area that

19 is likely to need such beds is below the ratio included in

20 guidelines that are established by the State and approved

21 by the Secretary under subsection (c).

22 (c) APPROVAL OF GUIDELINES.—The Secretary shall

23 promulgate regulations under which States may submit
3

•S 2449 IS

1 proposed guidelines for the issuance of certificates of need

2 under subsection (b) for review and approval.

Æ
# DLA Director recognizes DLA Distribution Europe employee

/ Published Dec. 1, 2022
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Defense Logistics Agency Director, Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic, presented Oliver Eschenbach, DLA Distribution Europe employee, a coin Nov. 29, at DLA Europe and Africa in Kaiserslautern, Germany. Eschenbach received the coin for exceptional performance of his duties as the primary access roster custodian; his efforts have been essential to DDDE truck access at the Germersheim Army Depot.

“It was awesome, to see Vice Adm. Skubic and Col. Chamberlain and others there to recognize my work, I am so proud,” Eschenbach said.

His proactive communications with the carriers and the access control point at GAD allowed DDDE to maintain uninterrupted access during a period of uncertainty. When necessary, he also performs sign-in and escort duty for drivers who are not covered by the ETP.

Recently, Eschenbach has been manually compiling daily rosters into weekly reports that capture good conduct certificate compliance and form the basis of DLA Distribution Europe’s reporting to external customers and higher headquarters.

"Working at DLA Distribution Europe for 17 years, this is Oliver’s first coin, and it is a big one. Oliver’s recognition reflects well on himself and all our local national workforce here at DDDE,” Army Lt. Col. Kimberly M. Rembert, commander of DLA Distribution Europe said.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Umberto Califano, Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 812]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (McDonald, J.), rendered March 18, 2016, convicting him of disorderly conduct, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20 [3]), based upon evidence that he engaged in conduct that included repeatedly making loud, obscene, and profanity-laced comments directed at a police officer and other people on a public street in a residential area at approximately 10:00 p.m. on February 15, 2014. Evidence was also adduced that the defendant threatened one of his neighbors with physical harm.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt of disorderly conduct. The defendant’s disruptive behavior recklessly created “ ‘a potential or immediate public problem’ ” *(People v Weaver,*16 NY3d 123, 128 [2011], quoting *People v Munafo,*50 NY2d 326, 331 [1980]), and there was adequate proof from which the jury reasonably could conclude that the defendant’s conduct created at least the risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm *(see People v Weaver,*16 NY3d at 128). Moreover, in fulfilling our *648responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see *People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Jones,*81 AD2d 22, 29 [1981]) and, in any event, without merit.

Balkin, J.P., Hinds-Radix, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Be prepared, build an emergency kit
 
  By Security and Emergency Services, Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond
  September is National Preparedness Month. Are you prepared for an emergency? When an emergency strikes, first responders and government officials are in a search, rescue, and damage assessment mode. Government officials and first responder organizations that offer life sustaining supplies may be days away. “That is why having an emergency kit readily available is an important priority,” said Russell Pitts, an antiterrorism officer with DLA Installation Management Richmond. Mike Kneip, a lead program analyst for DLA Aviation’s Command Support Directorate, knows a thing or two about making emergency kits. He started making emergency kits when he lived in Southern California where they would have little to no warning when an earthquake might strike. Kneip said he kept the practice going when he moved to Virginia. “Hurricane Irene and major power outages in Aug. 2011 reinforced the need for an emergency kit,” Kneip said. Most items that the Federal Emergency Management Agency recommends can already be found in your home. FEMA recommends having a three-day supply of food, water, medicine, and other consumables. To obtain a printable check list, follow this link: www.ready.gov/kits. Pitts said having critical items in a central location is important during a crisis. “Something as simple as a backpack or plastic tub clearly labeled with the contents could save valuable time in an emergency,” he said. “Build your kit slowly and purposefully,” Kneip recommends. “Buy a few things each time you go grocery shopping. Keep pets in mind if you have any, and stock up on any medications you are able to.” He suggests involving your family in building your kit to help them understand why it’s important to have one. If you have any question on emergency preparations, please contact Pitts, at Russell.pitts@dla.mil.
# Anniston site discusses changes and challenges during Disposition Services Director visit

/ Published Nov. 15, 2023
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Director Mike Cannon recently conducted a crucial pre-Warehouse Management System site visit to Anniston, Alabama, November 8, 2023. The primary focus of the visit was to engage with the Anniston team members and prepare them for the impending WMS migration.

“Our transition to WMS has been smoother than other IT rollout that I’ve seen in my 42 years,” Cannon said. “This tool will enable us to modernize in more areas.”

During the visit, Cannon delved into the history of WMS migration, exploring diverse approaches for DLA Distribution and Disposition Services. Noteworthy challenges were highlighted, particularly the need for customization at each Distribution site. The importance of maintaining a flawless inventory and expeditious disposal of property at various locations were underscored.

Training sessions were emphasized to be conducted by DLA Training. Simultaneously, the information technology team will transfer crucial information from DSS to WMS. Cannon addressed the learning curve for seasoned workers, acknowledging that adapting to WMS might take longer for experienced personnel as they have knowledge of previous systems and processes and the new system requires adjustments to the standard operating procedures.

Beyond WMS discussions, Cannon explored broader topics outlining Disposal Service Representative responsibilities, emphasizing the push for standardization within the agency. Automation tools such as robotic arms, small forklifts, and gloves with scanners were proposed for more efficient operations.

Site tours and project inspections were integral to the visit. The ongoing MILCON/renovation projects were observed, and the receiving process at DLA Distribution was analyzed. Small arms machines were inspected, with discussions on operational challenges.

DEMIL/MUT inspections took place in both Anniston and Odenville. Troubled property status was reviewed, and a detailed examination of the Small Arms Serialization Program was conducted.

Updates on the WMS migration included the shipment of Distribution disposal release orders to Anniston, with assurances from IT regarding table corrections. The migration of the SAP portion to WMS would be coordinated, considering ongoing software development.

In his closing remarks, Cannon extended heartfelt thanks to the Anniston team for their unwavering dedication. He commended their positive enthusiasm, especially during the handling of excess unprocessed distribution DROs. The visit concluded by reinforcing the significance of the team's contributions in ensuring safe and efficient operations during the upcoming WMS migration.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rene Santiago, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 327]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J., on consolidation motion; Dominic Massaro, J., at suppression hearing, jury trial and sentence), rendered February 15, 2002, as amended March 25, 2002, convicting defendant of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court appropriately exercised its discretion in granting the People’s motion to consolidate the two robbery indictments pursuant to CPL 200.20 (2) (c) *(see People v Lane,*56 NY2d 1 [1982]; *People v Streitferdt,*169 AD2d 171, 176 [1991], *lv denied*78 NY2d 1015 [1991]). There was no material variance in the quantity of proof presented with respect to the two crimes, and proof of each crime was presented separately, and was easily segregable in the minds of the jurors *(see People v Ndeye,*159 AD2d 397 [1990], *lv denied*76 NY2d 793 [1990]). Defendant’s other arguments relating to the consolidation of the indictments are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.

*264The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The evidence supports the court’s conclusion that the showup identification procedure relating to the first robbery was not unduly suggestive. Under the particular circumstances, including the fact that the initial identification had been the victim’s highly reliable spontaneous identification of defendant to an officer who was personally familiar with defendant and who subsequently apprehended him, the showup could not have increased the risk of misidentification *(see People v Gilbert,*295 AD2d 275 [2002], *Iv denied*99 NY2d 558 [2002]; *People v Nixon,*162 AD2d 225 [1990], *lv denied*76 NY2d 862 [1990]; *see also People v Morales,*37 NY2d 262, 271 [1975]). Defendant’s claim that the lineup relating to the second robbery was rendered unduly suggestive because he was the only participant with a beard is unavailing, because his facial hair was not a factor in the victim’s description of the assailant *(see People v Herrera,*198 AD2d 9 [1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 925 [1994]), and because the lineup photograph establishes that defendant’s small goatee was barely noticeable and that the lineup was fair *(see People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], *cert denied*498 US 833 [1990]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.