alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 09-11118.

#### Meloni Thomas, Petitioner v. Virginia.

562 U.S. 862, 131 S. Ct. 143,

178 L. Ed. 2d 86,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6109.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 279 Va. 131, 688 S.E.2d 220.
#### R. Vig Properties, LLC, Respondent, v Richard Cohen, Defendant, and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[60 NYS3d 97]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a commercial lease, the defendants C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Montgomery Logistics, LLC, GU Markets of Valatie, LLC, and GU Markets, LLC, appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated May 5, 2015, and (2) from so much of an amended order of the same court dated June 25, 2015, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to reargue those branches of its prior motion which were for leave to amend the complaint to increase the ad damnum clause and to add Richard Cohen as a defendant, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated October 24, 2014, and, upon re-argument, granted those branches of the prior motion. Application by the defendants C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Montgomery Logistics, LLC, GU Markets of Valatie, LLC, and *566GU Markets, LLC, to withdraw the appeal from so much of the amended order dated June 25, 2015, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to reargue that branch of its prior motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add Richard Cohen as a defendant, and, upon re-argument, granted that branch of the prior motion.

Ordered that the application is granted, and the appeal from so much of the amended order dated June 25, 2015, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to reargue that branch of its prior motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add Richard Cohen as a defendant, and, upon reargument, granted that branch of the prior motion, is deemed withdrawn; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 5, 2015, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the amended order dated June 25, 2015; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended order dated June 25, 2015, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to reargue that branch of its prior motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to increase the ad damnum clause, and, upon reargument, granting that branch of the prior motion (see CPLR 3025 [b]). The proposed amendment was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, and the amendment did not result in prejudice or surprise to the appellants (see *Nechifor v RH Atl.-Pac. LLC,*92 AD3d 514 [2012]; *Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v Briarpatch Film Corp.,*60 AD3d 585 [2009]; *Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Service Unlimited, USA, Inc.,*50 AD3d 1085 [2008]).

Chambers, J.R, Miller, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.
# Employee Spotlight: Yvonne ‘Mildred’ Orsatti

/ Published May 25, 2023
RICHMOND, Va., 
*Employee spotlight regularly features outstanding non-supervisory personnel from throughout the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and other DLA employees on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. Organizational directors may submit names of employees they wish to feature in this column to DLA Aviation Public Affairs.*

**Name:** Yvonne ‘Mildred’ Orsatti

**Organization:** DLA Aviation at Oklahoma City

**Years of service:** 20 years

**What is your job title and what do you do specifically?**As a materiel expediter, I stow the incoming materiel into inventory. I also pick customer orders which I deliver to our shops according to scheduled delivery times.

**How do you support the warfighter?** I support the warfighter by making sure needed material is delivered in a timely and accurate manner for aircraft maintenance being performed at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

**What do you like most about your job and why?**My job allows me to make a living while being part of the great mission at DLA.

**If you could speak directly to the warfighters you support, what would you tell them?**I would tell them all that I’m proud of you and I am honored to serve you.

**Professionally, where do you see yourself five years from now?**I see myself working at DLA Aviation in five years. I plan to continue learning and training so I can advance to a position with more responsibility.

**What are some of your passions outside of work?**When I’m away from my job, I enjoy making improvements to my house and spending time with my two cats.

**What is your proudest accomplishment and why?** Raising my two children is my greatest accomplishment.  I am proud of the productive people they have become and the choices they are making in their lives to include two wonderful sons-in-laws!
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

COCKRELL INVESTMENT

PARTNERS, L.P.,

Appellant,

v.

MIDDLE PECOS GROUNDWATER 

CONSERVATION DISTRICT, TY 

EDWARDS, in his Official Capacity as 

General Manager of the MIDDLE PECOS

GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION

DISTRICT, and FORT STOCKTON 

HOLDINGS, L.P.,

Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00200-CV

Appeal from the

83rd District Court

of Pecos County, Texas

(TC# P-8277-83-CV)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellees

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see TEX. R. APP. P. 43.5, for performance of the 

judgment and all costs, both in this Court and the court below, for which let execution issue. This 

decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3148

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota Edward Allan Willoughby, also known * as # Eddie-Boy, & also known as # Bobo, & * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 22, 2000 Filed: April 13, 2000

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BRIGHT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Edward Allan Willoughby appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the District of Minnesota upon his guilty plea to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court sentenced appellant to 210 months imprisonment and five years supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant-2-

to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For reversal, counsel argues that the district court erred in denying Willoughby a mitigating-role reduction and in calculating Willoughby’s criminal history as Category III and that Willoughby received ineffective assistance of counsel. In his pro se supplemental filing, Willoughby contends that the sentencing issues raised by counsel are meritorious and that the ineffective-assistance claim should be deferred to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We conclude that the sentencing issues were waived below. Although counsel included them in his objections to the presentence report, he did not pursue them or request rulings on them at the sentencing hearing, he declined the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing, and he allowed sentencing to be completed without drawing the district court’s attention to the objected-to matters. See United States v. Hester , 140 F.3d 753, 761-62 (8th Cir. 1998) (defendant waived objections, precluding appellate review, where he objected to various aspects of PSR, but declined district court’s invitationto be heard on objections at sentencing, did not request rulings on objections, and allowed sentencing to be completed without drawing court’s attention to objectedto matters). Willoughby’s ineffective-assistance claim should be deferred to § 2255 proceedings. See United States v. Martin , 59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995).
After review of counsel’s Anders brief, along with our independent review of the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.-3-
**EXHIBIT 10.18**
**SALARY INFORMATION FOREXECUTIVE OFFICERS**
The table below provides information regarding the salary of eachexecutive officer of Genitope Corporation asof March 1, 2005. All other compensation arrangements between Genitope Corporationand each of its executive officers are referenced in the ExhibitIndex to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.   **Executive Officer** **Salary**Dan W. Denney, Jr. **$300,000**John M. Vuko **$252,000**Diano Ingolia **$240,000**Bonnie Charpentier **$240,000**Claude Miller **$240,000**
No. 09-1488.

#### Sally Cornejo, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Son, Kevin Salas, Petitioner v. Fredda Monn, et al.

562 U.S. 948, 131 S. Ct. 158,

178 L. Ed. 2d 243,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7750.

October 4, 2010.

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

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

Same case below, 592 F.3d 121.
# DLA Joint Reserve Force director explores where reservists fit in global logistics environment

/ Published May 10, 2023
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Army Maj. Gen. Tripp Bowles, Defense Logistics Agency director of the Joint Reserve Force, visited DLA Distribution to gain insight into the overall DLA Distribution mission and learn where reservists fit into the scope of that mission.

“I can see the balance going on,” said Bowles, speaking to his own civilian career and how DLA Distribution balances operations against global supply chain issues, contested logistics and mission requirements.

DLA Distribution leadership explained how through research and data, the agency was able to save the Army about $25 million per year with guaranteed ground deliveries instead of commercial air, all with no impact to warfighter readiness.

The ongoing and future operations of DLA Distribution provide opportunities for reservists to fill roles, but it also presents challenges in where reservists are trained and for how long.

One of the challenges facing recruitment into the reserve forces is where the service members go for training and for how long. Being away from families for too long can deter people from joining the reserves.

DLA Distribution is currently training teams within the continental U.S. for missions that may potentially have global deployment.

One area Bowles sees potential for reserve forces is for contract officers to meet mission requirements. The expeditionary unit, DLA Distribution Expeditionary, sees great potential in using reservists during FEMA support missions.

DLA Distribution has the capability to rapidly expand to meet mission requirements by using the Global Distribution Expeditionary Contract. The GDEC is how DLA Distribution can rapidly hire workers to respond to contingencies and humanitarian crises. Reservists can play a key role in filling any rapid response mission requirements through proper training and use of the GDEC.
# Fostering camaraderie and recognizing hard work the old-fashioned way at Ogden

/ Published July 13, 2023
RICHMOND, Va. , 
Defense Logistics Agency Aviation at Ogden hosted an employee appreciation picnic June 29 at Centennial Park on Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah. 

The event served as a way of providing employees the opportunity to connect outside their normal work environment while fostering camaraderie amongst colleagues. It also set the stage for employees to be commended for their contributions and achievements.

“The hope is that this event will allow members of the workforce to bond, share stories and enjoy each other’s company, as well as enhance teamwork and collaboration within the DLA Aviation at Ogden family,” said Katie Wolfe, management assistant within DLA Aviation at Ogden’s Administrative Support Staff Division, and a member of the picnic planning committee.

“The goal of this event was to make it possible for team members to build stronger relationships and recognize the outstanding contributions of the workforce,” said Brenda Herrera, also a management assistant within the Administrative Support Staff Division. 

Both Wolfe and Herrera served on the picnic planning committee.

This was the last team building event for DLA Aviation at Ogden Commander Air Force Col. Jason Okumura as the leader of the organization. He relinquished command to Air Force Col. Ernest “Nest” Cage during a change of command ceremony held on Hill Air Force Base the day after the picnic.

“I appreciate events like this because it gives us the opportunity to spend time together,” Okumura said. “At the end of the day we are a family.”

Some of the highlights of the picnic included a car show, a dunk tank, pie-in-the-face contest and a tug-of-war showdown. 

“We here at DLA Aviation at Ogden will continue to prioritize employee appreciation,” said Holmes. “In support of our commitment, the committee has already started thinking of ways to make next year’s event an even bigger success.”
No. 10-5299.

#### Steven Allen Anthony, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 914, 131 S. Ct. 273,

178 L. Ed. 2d 180,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7253.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 22 So. 3d 555.
# DLA Distribution supports ERDC to complete RAIL demo 

/ Published April 30, 2021
ANNISTON, Ala., 
A demonstration of the Rapidly Available Interface for trans-Loading, or RAIL, system was recently conducted at Anniston Army Depot with support from Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Anniston, Alabama. Led by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center and the Combat Development Command, Ground Vehicle Systems Center, the demonstration was the first technical demonstration of the system.

RAIL, a program sponsored by the United States Transportation Command, began in October 2020. It was developed to provide an expeditionary railhead capability for loading and unloading tracked and wheeled vehicles.

“RAIL is a new, innovative capability that gives warfighters more agility when setting up an expeditionary rail head,” said Justin Strickler, division chief at the Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory at the ERDC in Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

The demonstration was a collaborative effort to showcase the system’s capabilities. “We used this demo to showcase the system in three different configurations,” said Strickler. “We were able to load and unload an M1A1 tank off the end of a rail car and off the side of the rail car.” 

DLA Distribution Anniston provided the material handling equipment and rail cars as well as the M1A1 Abrams tanks and drivers. Additional support was provided by soldiers from the 757th Expeditionary Rail Center.

 “DLA is actively engaged in modernization,” said Reginald Tyus, chief of vehicle and artillery branch at DDAA. “And Lt. Col. Oladipofaniyi, our commander, saw this demonstration as a way to support warfighters and aid in modernization, which are two of our top priorities.” Tyus added that DLA employees were highly motived and willing, every day, to support the success of the demo.

The demonstration lasted for five days. And, according to Stickler, it was successful, which he attributed to the collaborative effort.

“We’re a research organization, so being able to interface with an operations organization and have soldiers put their hands on the system is great,” he said. “And having both the soldiers and the DLA employees give their feedback proved the power of having a team like this come together.”

The team hopes to return to ANAD next year to complete another demonstration. “The demo we did this time was on a prepared surface,” Strickler said. “We hope to return in a year to show some other capabilities on an unprepared rail laydown yard.” Strickler hopes to show capabilities such as a rail line protection kit, which protects the track from a tank running over it.

Tyus added that DLA Distribution will continue to support missions such as this one. “DLA is always looking at how we can assist the armed services in supporting their mission,” he said. “Supporting this demonstration is just an example of how DLA is continuously involved in supporting the military services.”
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Hickman, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 486]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered January 13, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years’ probation, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The court erred in denying defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror who twice answered that she was “not sure” when asked whether she could be impartial in light of her recent experience as a crime victim. The court was obligated to excuse the panelist in the absence of an unequivocal statement that she could be fair and impartial *(see People v Chambers,*97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; *People v Blyden,*55 NY2d 73, 78 [1982]). The record fails to support the People’s assertion that the panelist’s expressions of uncertainty did not cast doubt on her ability to render an impartial verdict.

The factual allegations in the misdemeanor information were facially sufficient *(see People v Kalin,*12 NY3d 225, 230 [2009]).

*494Since we are ordering a new trial, we find it unnecessary to reach any other issues.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Singh and Moulton, JJ.
No. 10-5592.

#### In re Donnie Lee Wyldes, Jr., Petitioner.

562 U.S. 825, 131 S. Ct. 324,

178 L. Ed. 2d 257,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7747.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16** 
**- 1479** 

RICHARD ASARE ,
Petitioner ,

v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : November 21, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Gerald Karikari, KARIKARI & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Song E. Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation , U NITED S TATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Richard Asare, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigra tion Appeals (Board)

den ying Asare’s motion to reconsider its decision upholding the
Immigration Judge’s denial of his motion for a continuance . We
have reviewed the administrative record and Asare’s claims, and
find them to be without merit. We accordingly find no abuse of

dis cretion in the denial of reconsideration, see Narine v.

Holder , 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009), and deny the petition
for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Asare

(B.I.A. Mar. 31, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because

the fa cts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15941]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

[General Counsel Designation No. 237]


Appointment of Members to the Legal Division Performance Review 
Board

    Under the authority granted to me as General Counsel of the 
Department of the Treasury by 31 U.S.C. 301 and 26 U.S.C. 7801, 
Treasury Department Order No. 101-5 (Revised), and pursuant to the 
Civil Service Reform Act, I hereby appoint the following persons to the 
Legal Division Performance Review Board:
    (1) For the General Counsel Panel--

Neal S. Wolin, Deputy General Counsel, who shall serve as Chairperson;
Roberta K. McInerney, Assistant General Counsel (Banking & Finance);
Stephen J. McHale, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & 
Firearms;
Kenneth R. Schmalzbach, Assistant General Counsel (General Law and 
Ethics);
Debra N. Diener, Acting Assistant General Counsel (Enforcement); and
Elizabeth B. Anderson, Chief Counsel, United States Customs Service.

    (2) For the Internal Revenue Service Panel--Chairperson, Deputy 
Chief Counsel, IRS; Deputy General Counsel; Two Associate Chief 
Counsel, IRS; and Two Regional Counsel, IRS.
    I hereby delegate to the Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue 
Service the authority to make the appointments to the IRS Panel 
specified in this Designation and to make the publication of the IRS 
Panel as required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

    Dated: June 10, 1998.
Edward S. Knight,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-15941 Filed 6-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-M
No. 10-5619.

#### Chuong Van Duong, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 932, 131 S. Ct. 328,

178 L. Ed. 2d 213,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7214.

October 4, 2010.

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