alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Energy Indo-Pacific South-West changes leadership

/ Published June 13, 2023
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Navy Cmdr. Scott McCarthy assumed command of Defense Logistics Agency Energy Indo-Pacific South-West during a ceremony on Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, June 8.   

He relieved Navy Cmdr. Christopher Radke, who’s been in command since June 2021. Radke has been selected for promotion to Captain and will head to U.S. Naval Forces Europe.

“It has been the honor of my career to lead you,” Radke told the DLA Energy South-West Pacific team during his remarks. “You are a host of true professionals, subject matter experts in your respective fields, and just plain good people... I am very proud your hard work and your dedication to support our customers... I will miss it all and all of you.”

                Energy Indo-Pacific South-West changes leadership                            Outgoing Commander Navy Cmdr. Christopher Radke (middle) received the Defense Meritorious Service Medal from 36th Mission Support Group Commander Air Force Col. Kenneth Herndon (left) for his management of over 565 million gallons of fuel and over 70 Direct Delivery locations spanning 13 countries. Incoming DLA Energy Indo-Pacific South-West Commander Navy Cmdr. Scott McCarthy (right) assumed command of Defense Logistics Agency Energy Indo-Pacific South-West during a change of command ceremony on Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, June 8. Photo courtesy of DLA Energy Indo-Pacific South-West            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Photo courtesy of DLA Energy Indo-Pacific South-WestVIRIN: 230608-D-D0441-900

Radke received the Defense Meritorious Service Medal for his management of over 565 million gallons of fuel valued at $1.6 billion, and over 70 Direct Delivery locations spanning 13 countries and with contracts valued at $1.125 billion, providing crucial support to 23 annual exercises.

During this period, Radke significantly improved the maintenance posture of seven Defense Fuel Support Points executing over $518 million in both sustainment funds and new military construction projects across the Southwest Pacific, the citation noted.

McCarthy previously served on the island from late 2005 to 2008 and said he and his wife are excited for the opportunity to return to the “beautiful paradise.” He thanked the Indo-Pacific South-West team for the smooth transition.

“The warm welcome we received and immediate support from the moment we arrived were very meaningful to both of us,” he said. “I could not be more excited and proud to become the next region commander in DLA Energy’s largest area of responsibility.”

Military commanders lead DLA Energy worldwide offices that support fuel and energy-related missions in the respective regions including DLA Energy Americas in Texas; DLA Energy Europe & Africa in Germany; DLA Energy Middle East in Bahrain; and DLA Energy Indo-Pacific offices in Hawaii, Guam, Okinawa, Japan and Korea.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79889-79890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32345]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9940-51-Region 9]

Riverside Chrome Plating Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed 
CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
hereby providing notice of a proposed administrative settlement with 
two parties for recovery of response costs concerning the Riverside 
Chrome Plating Superfund Site in Riverside County, California (the 
Site). The proposed settlement requires Settling Parties Cleon Benson 
and SP Group, who own the Site property, to pay $86,388.99 to reimburse 
EPA for funds expended in performing and overseeing response actions at 
the Site. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of 
this Notice in the Federal Register, EPA will receive written comments 
relating to the proposed settlement. EPA will consider all comments 
received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if 
comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate the 
proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's 
response to any comments received will be available for public 
inspection at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

DATES: EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement 
until January 22, 2016.

[[Page 79890]]

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection 
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. A 
copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Craig Whitenack, 
EPA Region IX, 600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460 (SFD-7-5), Los Angeles, 
California 90017, telephone number (213) 244-1820. Comments should 
reference the Riverside Chrome Plating Superfund Site, Riverside, 
California, and should be addressed to Craig Whitenack at the above 
address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Whitenack, EPA Region IX, 600 
Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460 (SFD-7-5), Los Angeles, California 90017, 
telephone number (213) 244-1820; email Whitenack.Craig@EPA.Gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA enters into this proposed settlement 
pursuant to Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 
9622(i). The proposed settlement includes a covenant by EPA not to sue 
the settling parties pursuant to Sections 106 or 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 
U.S.C. 9606 or 9607(a), conditioned upon Settling Parties' compliance 
with the terms of the proposed settlement agreement.

    Dated: November 30, 2015.
Enrique Manzanilla,
Director, Superfund Division, U.S. EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-32345 Filed 12-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Van Phu Bui, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 534]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Albert Lorenzo, J.), entered on or about December 3, 2014, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly assessed points for a history of drug or alcohol abuse, based upon defendant’s admission to probation officials *(see e.g. People v Kelly,*69 AD3d 498 [1st Dept 2010]) that he periodically abused alcohol and was smoking marijuana at the time of the underlying offense. There was clear and convincing evidence of such abuse, satisfying the standard set forth in *People v Palmer*(20 NY3d 373, 378-379 [2013]).

The court providently exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841 [2014]). The mitigating factors cited by defendant were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument, or were outweighed by the egregiousness of the underlying crime.

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.
# National Energy Action Month offers DLA Energy opportunities

/ Published Oct. 26, 2015
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, Installation Energy
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33708-33709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16389]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive, 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (``CERCLA'')

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United States v. Atkemix 
Thirty-Seven, Inc., (M.D. Fl.) Civil Action No. 98-1203-CIV-T-25-F was 
lodged on June 10, 1998, with the United States District Court for the 
Middle District of Florida.
    In this action the United States sought injunctive relief and 
recovery of response costs under sections 106(a) and 107 of CERCLA, 42 
U.S.C. 9606(a) and 9607, with respect to the Stauffer Chemical 
Superfund Site in Tampa, Florida (``the Site'').
    Under a proposed Consent Decree, Atkemix Thirty-Seven, Inc., the 
present owner and operator of a portion of the Site, has agreed to 
perform the remedy chosen by EPA to clean up the Site, pay the 
government's remaining past response costs, and pay future response 
costs, in settlement of the government's claims under sections 106 and 
107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication,

[[Page 33709]]

comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be 
addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and 
Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 
20530, and should refer to United States v. Atkemix Thirty-Seven, Inc., 
(M.D. Fl.), DOJ# 90-11-2-1227.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney, 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 3200, Tampa, 
Florida 33602; the Region 4 Office of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, and at the Consent 
Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, 
(202) 624-0892. A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained 
in person or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, 
NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In requesting a copy please refer 
to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $50.00 (25 
cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree 
Library. In requesting a copy exclusive of exhibits, please enclose a 
check for $20.50 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the 
Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 98-16389 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
#### Eastern Logistics, Inc. v. W.C.A.B. (Jenkins)

12/16/2015

669 MAL (2015)

Denied
<PAGE>

                                                                           EX-23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



PAGE 64



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


            We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-89473, 333-23091, 333-89473,
333-54018, 333-54026, and 333-71548) of our report dated April 28, 2003 relating
to the consolidated financial statements of Drexler Technology Corporation which
appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation
by reference of our report dated April 28, 2003 relating to the financial
statement schedule for Fiscal 2003 and Fiscal 2002, which appears in this Form
10-K.


/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
July 10, 2003


                                       64
# C_2013260EN.01003901.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/39

---

Action brought on 17 July 2013 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-406/13)

2013/C 260/69

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, O. Beynet and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Romania

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the transposition of the provisions in Article 3(3) and (4), Article 4(2), Article 8, Article 9(1) to (7), Article 10(2) and (5), Article 13(1) and (5), Article 14(4) and (5)(b), Article 16(1), Article 25(5), Article 36(9)(3), Article 41(1)(d), (g) and (q), (3)(b) and (d), (6)(a) and (c), and (10) to (12), Article 42(1), Article 43(1), (4) and (8) and point 1 in Annex I to Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, (1) or in any event failing to notify such measures to the European Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the transposition of the provisions in Article 3(3) and (4), Article 4(2), Article 8, Article 9(1) to (7), Article 10(2) and (5), Article 13(1) and (5), Article 14(4) and (5)(b), Article 16(1), Article 25(5), Article 36(9)(3), Article 41(1)(d), (g) and (q), (3)(b) and (d), (6)(a) and (c), and (10) to (12), Article 42(1), Article 43(1), (4) and (8) and point 1 in Annex I to Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, (1) or in any event failing to notify such measures to the European Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of the directive;

1

| — | order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty of EUR 30 228,84 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary for the transposition of Directive 2009/73/EC, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty of EUR 30 228,84 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary for the transposition of Directive 2009/73/EC, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

| — | order Romania to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Romania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the transposition of the directive into national law expired on 3 March 2011.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.

1

---
#### West St. Props., LLC v American States Ins. Co.

2d Dept: 150 AD3d 792

denied
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2456

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out activities on certain

federally owned lands to address the adverse effects of 1994 wildfires

in the western portion of the United States, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 22 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out activities

on certain federally owned lands to address the adverse

effects of 1994 wildfires in the western portion of the

United States, 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 ‘‘Forest Health Act of

5 1994’’.
2

•S 2456 IS

1 SEC. 2. ACTIVITIES TO ADDRESS THE ADVERSE EFFECTS

2 OF WILDFIRES.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi4 sion of law, immediately after the date of enactment of

5 this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the

6 Chief of the Forest Service and in consultation with the

7 Secretary of the Interior, shall carry out the following ac8 tivities on Federally owned lands that were adversely af9 fected by the 1994 wildfires in the western portion of the

10 United States:

11 (1) Thinning and salvaging dead, dying, bug in12 fested, and burnt timber to remove existing fuel

13 loads and improve the health of forests.

14 (2) Seeding with grass seeds, conducting tree

15 planting operations, and carrying out other forms of

16 revegetation for the purposes of flood prevention and

17 the prevention of landslides.

18 (b) EMPLOYMENT.—Notwithstanding any other pro19 vision of law, to the maximum extent practicable, the Sec20 retary of Agriculture shall employ dislocated timber work21 ers to carry out the activities specified in subsection (a).

Æ
No. 10-5847.

#### Richard Rowell, Petitioner v. Ruben A. Martino, et al.

562 U.S. 968, 131 S. Ct. 471,

178 L. Ed. 2d 300,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8091,

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-30807

Summary Calendar

 

LINDA F. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(98-CV-1450)

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

February 3, 2000

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Linda Mitchell appeals from the district

court’s judgment affirming the denial of her application for

supplemental security income. She argues that the district court

applied an improper legal standard to conclude that she was not

prejudiced by the Administrative Law Judge's (“ALJ”) refusal to

order a consultative mental examination, that the ALJ erred in

applying the Medical-Vocational Guidelines because the Guidelines

fail to take into account her non-exertional impairments, and that

the district court erred in modifying the Commissioner's decision
2

by concluding that she retained the ability to perform the full

range of sedentary work and was therefore not entitled to

disability benefits.

We have reviewed the record and find that the district court

did not err in concluding that Mitchell did not carry her burden of

showing that she was prejudiced by the ALJ’s failure to order a

consultative mental examination. See Kane v. Heckler, 731 F.2d

1216, 1220 (1984). Neither did the ALJ commit a legal error in

applying the Guidelines after determining that Mitchell's nonexertional impairments did not significantly affect her residual

functional capacity to work. See Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614

(5th Cir. 1990). Nor did the district court err in modifying the

Commissioner's decision by applying a different Guideline to

conclude that Mitchell retains the residual functional capacity to

perform the full range of sedentary work; and that decision is

supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Mays v.

Bowen, 837 F.2d 1362, 1364 (5th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.
#### OneWest Bank, FSB, Respondent, v Milton D. Galloway, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[49 NYS3d 484]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Milton D. Galloway appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated September 24, 2014, as denied those branches of his motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) and (3) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered August 5, 2013, upon his failure to answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In December 2009, the plaintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against, among others, the defendant Milton D. Galloway (hereinafter the defendant). A judgment of foreclosure and sale was entered upon the defendant’s default in failing to answer the complaint. Thereafter, the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2), (3), and (4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The defendant appeals, arguing that vacatur was warranted pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) and (3).

The defendant’s contention that the plaintiff fraudulently obtained the judgment of foreclosure and sale by making false allegations in the complaint about its standing to commence the action amounts to an allegation of intrinsic fraud *(see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Karlis,*138 AD3d 915, 916 [2016]; *New Century Mtge. Corp. v Corriette,*117 AD3d 1011, 1012 [2014]; *Bank of N.Y. v Lagakos,*27 AD3d 678, 679 [2006]). *819A defendant seeking to vacate a default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) based on intrinsic fraud must establish a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action *(see New Century Mtge. Corp. v Corriette,*117 AD3d at 1012; *Bank of N.Y. v Stradford,*55 AD3d 765, 765-766 [2008]; *Bank of N.Y. v Lagakos,*27 AD3d at 679). Here, since the defendant has presented no excuse for his default, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, regardless of whether he presented a potentially meritorious defense to the action.

Additionally, the defendant failed to demonstrate his entitlement to vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2), based upon newly discovered evidence. A party seeking to vacate a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) must establish, inter aha, that the newly discovered evidence probably would have produced a different result *(see Meltzer v Meltzer,*140 AD3d 716, 717 [2016]; *Sicurelli v Sicurelli,*73 AD3d 735 [2010]; *Federated Conservationists of Westchester County v County of Westchester,*4 AD3d 326, 327 [2004]). Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, even if the evidence proffered in support of the motion was new within the meaning of the statute, it did not warrant vacatur of the judgment of foreclosure and sale. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale.

Hall, J.P., Miller, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
No. 10-97.

#### Patrick J. Lynch, as President of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. City of New York, New York, et al.

562 U.S. 995, 131 S. Ct. 415,

178 L. Ed. 2d 344,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8217.

October 18, 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 94.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13933]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-2973-000]


Williams Energy Services Company; Notice of Filing

May 20, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 12, 1998, Williams Energy Services Company 
filed an Amendment to the Alamitos and Redondo Beach Generating Station 
Must Run Agreement adopting such Agreement as WESCO's Rate Schedule. 
Pursuant to such Agreement, sales are made to the California 
Independent System Operator at regulated rates now in effect subject to 
refund pending the outcome of a hearing in Docket No. ER98-441-000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with the Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before June 1, 1998. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-13933 Filed 5-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M