alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# DLA Warren’s procurement creativity sustains U.S. Army tank engine availability

/ Published March 10, 2022
DETROIT ARSENAL, Michigan, 
The U.S. Army’s M88A2 Hercules Recovery Vehicle Platform can rescue more tanks in the field thanks to a collaborative effort between the Army and the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Warren.

The supply chain availability of the engine powering the M88A2 Hercules experienced part shortages that negatively impacted one of the Army’s engine rebuild programs. The shortages were primarily caused by unusable engine components that couldn’t be used in the Army’s rebuild process.

The Hercules is a recovery vehicle designed primarily to recover/extricate combat tactical vehicles that have been damaged, stuck, overturned or deemed inoperable, and supports aide to the vehicle’s crew. It is commonly used to remove and install engines or transmissions in the M88, Abrams tanks, Bradley Forward Observer Vehicles and armored personnel carriers. Its secondary role supports maintenance assistance with repair or replacement of parts damaged during operations. Its engine assembly is specific to the M88A2 family of vehicles and is managed by U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command’s Life Cycle Management Command. The engine serves as the power source for the entire platform and supports mobility while also enabling recovery operations.

DLA Land Warren Contracting, Army Program Management, Ground Vehicle Systems Center Engineering and Army Integrated Logistics Support Center customer personnel engaged in a collaborative effort to establish competition for an item that was historically procured sole source.

“What made this engine procurement successful was the collaborative effort from our fellow DLA Land Warren associates in engineering, legal, contracting and pricing to challenge the approved sole source supplier and work with them to open competition by adding the original engine manufacturer to the engine drawing requirement,” said Chuck Newell, DLA Warren cost/price analyst.

Their combined efforts introduced updates to the engine’s technical data package which included the drawings with DFARS compliant markings and removal of proprietary restrictions; immediately increasing vendor competition. The revisions included in the new contract produced an estimated savings or cost avoidance of more than $84 million.

“DLA Warren is always evaluating opportunities to improve our service and that’s why we keep asking ourselves how we can do something better,” said DLA Warren Director Vito Zuccaro.

*Editor’s note: Eric Tucker, DLA Warren Contracting Officer, Elaine Ionescu and Amy Robosan (both since retired) DLA Warren Contract Specialists, Darin Morency, DLA Warren Senior Counsel and Charles Newell, DLA Warren Cost/Price Analyst all made significant contributions to securing the contract and sustaining the engine’s supply chain dependability.*
# HQC Health and Safety Expo promotes ‘Wellness with a Purpose’

/ Published May 12, 2023
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
The Health and Safety Expo returned to the McNamara Headquarters Complex May 10.

With the theme “Wellness with a Purpose,” the event featured about 20 vendors promoting physical, emotional and financial wellness, as well as social health.

This was the first Health and Safety Expo held at the complex since 2019. The event goal was to empower the HQC workforce with information and assistance, said Asante Kufuor, fitness and wellness program manager for HQC Morale, Welfare and Recreation.                 The McNamara Headquarters Complex held a chair yoga demonstration during the Health and Safety Expo May 10, 2023 at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. It was the first expo held at the complex since 2019. Photo by Chris Lynch                            HQC Health and Safety Expo promotes ‘Wellness with a Purpose’                            The McNamara Headquarters Complex held a chair yoga demonstration during the Health and Safety Expo May 10, 2023 at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. It was the first expo held at the complex since 2019. Photo by Chris Lynch            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Chris Lynch DLA PhotographerVIRIN: 230510-D-HE260-1002

“We understand the challenges that the pandemic has had on everyone. It was important for me and my MWR colleagues to bring back a program that has impacted the lives of many people. We brought in amazing vendors that were dedicated to serving the needs of the military, civilian and contractors,” Kufuor said.

The event also featured free massages, samples of healthy soups and drinks, and a free outdoor chair yoga session. Several tables highlighted organizations with employees in the complex as well as Fort Belvoir.

Sharing information on preventing slips, trips and falls was the message shared by Tyrone Green, DLA’s safety and occupational health manager.

“We want to get out that information on what to look out for. You can never get enough of that. We try to mitigate it as much as possible,” Green said.
No. 10-5549.

#### Syed Hasan, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 954, 131 S. Ct. 317,

178 L. Ed. 2d 253,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7801.

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, 586 F.3d 161.
#### People v Baker (Joanne)

2d Dept: 139 AD3d 1078 (Westchester)

denied 8/29/16 (Pigott, J.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996    
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                           1,444
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,720
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,796
<PP&E>                                           4,131
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,685
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,158
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,685
<SALES>                                          4,392
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,392
<CGS>                                                0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,669 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  90 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,277)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       506 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,771)     
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,771)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.15)
                                                

</TABLE>
# C_2014395EN.01006401.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/64

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 September 2014 –Julien-Malvy and Others v EEAS

(Case F-100/13) (1)

((Civil service - Remuneration - Staff of the EEAS assigned to a third country - Decision of the appointing authority amending the list of third countries in respect of which the living conditions are equivalent to those normally obtaining in the European Union - Measure of general application - Admissibility of the action - Annual assessment of the allowance for living conditions - Abolition))

(2014/C 395/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Julien-Malvy (Tokyo, Japan) and Others (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the EEAS no longer to grant, as of 1 January 2014, the allowance for living conditions to officials assigned to Argentina, Chile, China (Hong Kong), Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that Mr Julien-Malvy and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Mr Julien-Malvy and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall bear their own costs;

| 3. | Declares that the European External Action Service shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the European External Action Service shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15/2/2014, p. 46.

---
DLA Distribution employees garner top honors at Agency’s 56th Annual Employee Recognition Awards ceremony
 
  By Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Public Affairs
  Personnel from Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, DLA Installation Management at Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, and DLA Installation Management at San Joaquin, California, received top honors in several categories during DLA’s 56th Annual Employee Recognition Awards ceremony held at the Agency’s headquarters Jan 25. In an organization email, Perry Knight, DLA Distribution deputy commander, lauded the accomplishments of the winners. “Though not all of our submissions were chosen for the DLA Annual Awards, we recognize the amazing efforts of our dedicated workforce. We have accomplished so much together and I appreciate all you have contributed to our mission during fiscal year 2023,” said Knight. Winners were selected from a large group of worthy nominations, all of whom deserve special recognition for their outstanding accomplishments. The following personnel were recognized in the DLA Enterprise Award categories: Top Ten DLA Employees of the Year Award
Category B: Natalie Lee-Haynes, DLA Distribution San Joaquin, California
Category C: Jennifer Davis, DLA Distribution Cherry Point, North Carolina Employee of the Quarter
Kathy Simmons, DLA Distribution Team Awards/Large Category
DLA Veterans Administration Personal Protection Equipment Mission Support Team, DLA Distribution Equal Employment Opportunity Awards
Achievement in EEO by a Supervisor or Manager: Anthony Zuk, DLA Distribution Military Personnel Awards
Field Grade Officer of the Year: Navy Lt. Cmdr. Gary Maurer, DLA Distribution Installation Support Excellence Awards
Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Program Management Award: Cynthia Paredes, DLA Installation Management at San Joaquin, California
DLA Police Officer of the Year: Officer Marc MacLain, DLA Installation Management at Susquehanna, Pennsylvania
DLA Firefighter of the Year: Firefighter Joshua Paul, DLA Installation Management at Susquehanna, Pennsylvania
DLA Fire Officer of the Year: Assistant Fire Chief Fred Smith, DLA Installation Management at Susquehanna, Pennsylvania
DLA Fire Service Instructor of the Year: Assistant Fire Chief Gregory Watkins Jr., DLA Installation Management at San Joaquin, California
DLA Emergency Communication Center Dispatcher of the Year: Lead Dispatcher Noah Kingham, DLA Installation Management at San Joaquin, California
DLA Fire Department of the Year: DLA Installation Management at Susquehanna, Pennsylvania Enterprise Safety Excellence Awards
Safety Professional of the Year: Jelisa Vazquez Nazario, DLA Europe & Africa
DLA Safety Champion of the Year: Ashley Contreras, DLA Distribution
DLA Employee Safety/Voluntary Protection Program Team: Defense Depot San Joaquin California Automated Materiel Handling Systems Team, DLA Distribution Security Professional Awards
DLA Junior Security Professional of the Year: Daniel Avila, DLA Distribution Acquisition Excellence Awards
Acquisition Workforce Individual Achievement: Brittany Schofield, DLA Distribution
Congratulations to all of our DLA Distribution winners!
#### People v Barnes

4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1714 (Niagara)

denied reconsideration 3/2/17 (Rivera, J.)
#### Deborah Bagielto, Respondent, v Karen Kolsch, Appellant.

[48 NYS3d 741]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (David T. Reilly, J.), dated October 14, 2014, and a money judgment of that court entered December 22, 2014. The order awarded the plaintiff an attorney’s fee in the sum of $30,000. The money judgment, upon the order, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $30,000.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

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

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed, as the order was superseded by the money judgment.

In a matrimonial action, an award of an attorney’s fee is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court *(see Cusumano v Cusumano,*96 AD3d 988 [2012]). An award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (a) “will generally be warranted where there is a significant disparity in the financial circumstances of the parties” *(Prichep v Prichep,*52 AD3d 61, 65 [2008]; *see Chesner v Chesner,*95 AD3d 1252 [2012]; *Palmeri v Palmeri,*87 AD3d 572 [2011]; *Fredericks v Fredericks,*85 AD3d 1107 [2011]). In determining whether to award an attorney’s fee, the court should review the financial circumstances of both parties, together with all of the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties’ positions (see *Chesner v Chesner,*95 AD3d 1252 [2012]; *Chaudry v Chaudry,*95 AD3d 1058 [2012]; *Perry v Perry,*88 AD3d 861 [2011]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff an attorney’s fee in the sum of $30,000. In reaching this determination, the court properly considered the relative financial circumstances of the parties, and the particular circumstances of the case *(see Turner v Turner,*130 AD3d 609 [2015]; *Matter of Brink v Brink,*55 AD3d 601, 602 [2008]; *Ventimiglia v Ventimiglia,*36 AD3d 899 [2007]).

Leventhal, J.R, Sgroi, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.
No. 10-6162.

#### Larry Edward Hendricks, Petitioner v. LeVern Cohen, Warden.

562 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 521,

178 L. Ed. 2d 384,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8635.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 391.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

                            FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

</LEGEND>

<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              jan-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                   jul-31-2000
<CASH>                                                         241,013
<SECURITIES>                                                   34,375
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               275,388
<PP&E>                                                         3,127
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 313
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 532,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          3,900,307
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                       59,326
<OTHER-SE>                                                     (3,617,373)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   532,260
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               17,696
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  446,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               15,625
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             8,125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                (453,049)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            (453,049)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   (453,049)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0



</TABLE>
# C_2014071EN.01000602.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 2 December 2013 — Adarco Invest sp. z o.o established in Petrosani (Romania), Polish branch in Tarnowskie Góry

(Case C-629/13)

(2014/C 71/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach

Party to the main proceedings

Appellant: Adarco Invest sp. z o.o established in Petrosani (Romania), Polish branch in Tarnowskie Góry

Question referred

Do Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 1 of the Eleventh Council Directive concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State by certain types of company governed by the law of another State (1) preclude refusal in a Member State to remove from the Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy (commercial register) a branch of a company established in another Member State in so far as that branch has not been wound up in accordance with the procedure laid down for winding up a domestic limited liability company, whereas such a procedure does not have to be carried out to remove a branch of a domestic company from the register? In the case of domestic companies, branches are entered only in the registration of the domestic company and that company is obliged to submit a consolidated financial statement covering the parent company and its branches, whilst branches of foreign companies are registered in the Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy (commercial register) and submit to the register only a financial statement for the branch.

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 36.

---
# Aerospace Energy brings awareness to breast cancer

/ Published Oct. 23, 2015
SAN ANTONIO, Aerospace Energy
No. 10-5257.

#### David Palacios, Petitioner v. Harold Graham, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility, et al.

562 U.S. 953, 131 S. Ct. 267,

178 L. Ed. 2d 252,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7756.

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, 589 F.3d 556.
No. 10-6579.

#### David Brian Stone, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 995, 131 S. Ct. 439,

178 L. Ed. 2d 345,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8261.

October 18, 2010.

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

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

Same case below, 608 F.3d 939.
No. 10-126.

#### Media Technologies Licensing, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. The Upper Deck Company, et al.

562 U.S. 894, 131 S. Ct. 305,

178 L. Ed. 2d 144,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6446.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 596 F.3d 1334.
No. 10-5950.

#### Roberto Ramos, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 969, 131 S. Ct. 475,

178 L. Ed. 2d 302,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8117.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
#### Com. v. Ellis

12/10/2015

528 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 98
Exhibit     10



Exhibit     10.1


 


Crompton Corporation

199 Benson Road

Middlebury, CT 06749

(203) 573-2000



















Stock Option Agreement

[Name of Optionee] 


Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Crompton Corporation 1998 Long Term Incentive Plan ("the Plan"), you have been granted a Non-Qualified Stock Option to purchase  [       ] shares (the "Option") of stock as outlined below.  


 


	
Granted To:
	
[Name of Optionee]
	 
	
Grant Date:
	
November 23, 2004
	 
	
Options Granted:
	
[Number of Options]
	 
	
Option Price per Share: $
	 	
Total Cost to Exercise:

	
Expiration Date:
	
December 22, 2014
	 
	
Vesting Schedule:
	
33% on First Anniversary;

33% on Second Anniversary; and

34% on Third Anniversary.
	 





 

By your signature and the Company's signature below, you and the Company agree that this Option is granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of the Plan.  A copy of the Plan is attached and made a part of this document.  


	
Signature:                                            

                     Crompton Corporation
	
Date:                             

	
Signature:                                            

                     [Name of Optionee]
	
Date:
No. 09-1372.

#### Medison America, Inc., Petitioner v. Preferred Medical Systems, LLC, et al.

562 U.S. 831, 131 S. Ct. 101,

178 L. Ed. 2d 29,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6364.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 656.