alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Chaplain talks life after combat during PTSD workshop

/ Published Aug. 29, 2016
PHILADELPHIA, 
Combat deployments can be a defining time in the lives of service members, the chaplain for the Pennsylvania Army National Guard’s 28th Infantry Division told Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support employees Aug. 25. 

Lt. Col. Douglas Etter shared deployment stories of his own and other service members during a post-traumatic stress disorder workshop. Etter also works as the manager of Public and Community Relations at the Lebanon VA Medical Center.

“I think everyone who has been to combat comes back different,” said Etter. “You cannot be in combat and remain the same. I have family members all the time that verify that for me.”

Etter deployed twice in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, from 2005 to 2006 and from 2008 to 2009. Since his first deployment, he’s been working with veterans as a way “to go take care of my brothers and sisters-at-arms.” 

According to theDepartment of Veterans AffairsNational Center for PTSD, about 11 to 20 percent of veterans from OIF and Operation Enduring Freedom have PTSD.

“PTSD is when something happens to you or you witness something that happens to someone else and it involves extreme terror,” said Etter.

Army Brig. Gen. Charles R. Hamilton, DLA Troop Support commander, hosted the workshop as a way to help DLA Troop Support employees better understand PTSD and how to help those dealing with it be successful in the workplace.

“This is really about awareness,” said Hamilton. “In many cases, we need to be aware of what PTSD is all about and how it can affect anyone. The other part of that is that we have to be sensitive to it as well.”

Overall, human beings are resilient, and most service members are able to readjust to normal life after being in combat, Etter said. But Etter believes there’s an adjustment period for anyone who served in combat.

“All service members, when they return from a combat environment, have adjustment issues,” said Etter. 

Army Sergeant 1st Class Marcus Jones, customer account specialist in Clothing and Textiles, attended the event and said it was important for employees to get a glimpse of what warfighters go through, especially since DLA supports them.

“It is something, when you have those memories and personal experiences, and to have somebody talk, not just to you, but talk to a broad audience and really get folks to think of how is my buddy to my right or left doingin response to combat,” said Jones.

Etter said there are various organizations to help those suffering with PTSD:
      -  A military behavioral health unit for service members 
      -  Veterans Affairs for prior service members 
      -  The National Alliance on Mental Illness for others 

“We want to recognize the symptoms if we can,” Hamilton said. “Or more importantly, we want to try and get that person to some type of professional help or encourage them to anyway.”
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2634 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2634

To prohibit a Federal firearms licensee from transferring a long gun to 
a person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does 
  not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business 
 entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which 
              the licensee's place of business is located.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2019

 Mr. Crow (for himself, Mr. Neguse, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Hastings, Ms. 
  Shalala, Mr. Deutch, and Ms. Norton) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit a Federal firearms licensee from transferring a long gun to 
a person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does 
  not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business 
 entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which 
              the licensee's place of business is located.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Closing the Loophole on Interstate 
Firearm Sales Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION TO LONG GUNS OF BAN ON LICENSEE TRANSFER OF FIREARM 
              TO OUT-OF-STATE PERSON.

    Section 922(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``(A)'' and all that follows through ``(B)''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Patrick Nunziante et al., Plaintiffs, v New York Quarterly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends et al., Appellants. New York Quarterly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Liberty Contracting Corp., Third-Party Defendant, and Kaback Enterprises, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. (And Another Action.)

[50 NYS3d 287]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered May 27, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted third-party defendant DAL Electric Corporation’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party claim of failure to procure insurance as against it, and granted third-party defendant Kaback Enterprises, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered October 14, 2016, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

The plain language of DAL’s agreement required DAL to *597procure insurance adding defendants as additional insureds under its policy *(see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri,*77 NY2d 157, 162-163 [1990]).

Conflicting testimony presents an issue of fact whether Kaback’s work on the roof was a contributing cause of the accident.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Kahn, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Patch  International,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2006, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John Thornton,  interim President (Principal Executive and Financial Officer) of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
       of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material
       respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operations  of  the
       Company.


 /s/ JOHN THORNTON
------------------------------------
John Thornton
Interim President
#### 39E67th LLC et al., Appellants, v Oliver Bivins, Jr., et al., Respondents.

[69 NYS3d 631]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered August 18, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract cause of action and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on that cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In the 2013 “Summary of Terms” (the contract on which plaintiffs sue), defendants Oliver Bivins, Jr. (Oliver Jr.) and Estate of Lorna Bivins agreed to transfer 20% of 39 East 67th Street to plaintiff Beachton Tuxedo LLC in exchange for, inter alia, Beachton’s release of its claim to 40% of 808 Lexington *589Avenue, which claim was based on an October 2012 agreement between Beachton and Oliver Jr. The motion court found that this consideration was illusory because Oliver Jr. could not have conveyed any interest in 808 Lexington Avenue as of October 2012. However, Lorna (Oliver Jr.’s mother) owned at least 50%, and possibly 100%, of the Lexington Avenue property. When she died intestate in February 2011, title to that property vested in Oliver Jr., her only child and heir *(see Matter of Kingsland v Murray,*133 NY 170, 174 [1892]; *see also Matter of Ramsdill,*190 NY 492, 495 [1908]). Thus, as the owner of at least 50% of 808 Lexington Avenue, Oliver Jr. had the power in October 2012 to agree to give 40% of the property to Beachton.

We affirm the dismissal of the contract claim. First, the only proper plaintiff on this claim is Beachton; none of the other plaintiffs were parties to the Summary of Terms. Second, as to Beachton, reading the Summary of Terms together with the October 2012 agreement to which it refers *(see e.g. Nolfi Masonry Corp. v Lasker-Goldman Corp.,*160 AD2d 186, 187 [1st Dept 1990]), it is clear that Beachton had the right to convert its mortgage note into equity as long as the note had not been paid in full. However, in December 2014, Beachton was paid in full. In opposition to plaintiffs’ cross motion, Oliver Jr. submitted an affidavit saying, “I never agreed to give [plaintiff Edward Kuhnel, a member and organizer of Beachton] both the 808 Lexington mortgage and equity to exchange for equity in 67th Street .... [I]t was *either*one *or*the other.” The affidavit that plaintiffs submitted in reply on their cross motion did not dispute this.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions, and find them unavailing.

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber, Oing, JJ.
# DLA Energy Pacific supports RIMPAC 2016

/ Published Aug. 18, 2016
PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii,
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20197 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DONALD EUGENE HAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-561-1

-------------------- February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appointed counsel for Donald Eugene Hawkins has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Hawkins received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
No. 10-6147.

#### Parneal Tyrone Hall, Petitioner v. Derrick L. Ollison, Warden.

562 U.S. 986, 131 S. Ct. 424,

178 L. Ed. 2d 331,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8132.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# DSCR environmental cleanup program discussed at RAB meeting

/ Published July 18, 2016
RICHMOND, VA, 
Community members attended the Defense Logistics Agency Installation Support at Richmond’s Environmental Cleanup Program quarterly Restoration Advisory Board meeting July 11 at the Bensley Community Center in Chesterfield County, Virginia.

DLA established a RAB for Defense Supply Center Richmond in January 2002 to provide a forum for the community to be involved in DSCR’s environmental cleanup. 

About two dozen people attended the meeting, including Defense Logistics Agency Installation Support at Richmond Site Director David Gibson. 

David Hufford, environmental engineer with DLA Installation Support at Richmond’s Environmental Office, opened the meeting by giving an update to several ongoing projects, including groundwater sampling at DSCR; Operable Unit 6: groundwater impacted from the open storage, landfill, and National Guard areas, Operable Unit 7: groundwater impacted from the fire training area; and Operable Unit 8: groundwater impacted by former acid neutralization pit operations.

Jim Spencer, a DLA environmental contractor with AECOM, gave a more in-depth presentation on Operable Unit 6. He stated that thousands of gallons of emulsified vegetable oil were injected site wide in July and August of last year and that additional gravity feed EVO injections were completed last December and March of this year that addressed some hot spots that were not previously treated.   

“Our goal is to address this issue aggressively, evaluate the progress and look at any future actions that may be needed,” said Spencer.

Spencer said that post injection monitoring was performed last October, this past January, is currently ongoing. So far, the results of this monitoring shows evidence of decrease in the concentration of volatile organic compounds.

As an advisory board, the RAB makes suggestions, recommendations, and comments on issues concerning investigations and remediation activities. It is made up of local citizens, DLA representatives, business groups and personnel from the Environmental Protection Agency, Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality, and Chesterfield County. The RAB is co-chaired by a DSCR representative and a community representative.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16524]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Human Resource Development; Notice Of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name and Committee Code: Special Emphasis Panel in Human 
Resource Development (#1199).
    Date and Time: July 14-15, 1998; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
310, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Margrete S. Klein, Ph.D., Program Director, 
Human Resource Development Division, Room 815, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: 
(703) 306-1637.
    Purpose of Meeting: To review proposals submitted to the Program 
for Women and Girls Implementation and Development Projects Over 
$100,00 Budget initiative.
    Agenda: To review proposals for this program and make funding 
recommendations.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: June 17, 1998.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-16524 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### Mai Rahhal et al., Respondents, v Sarika Downing, R.N., et al., Defendants, and Anacleta Villamor, R.N., et al., Appellants.

[67 NYS3d 619]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered June 29, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction due to lack of effective service, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellants are doctors and a nurse who were employed by defendant Bronx Lebanon Hospital at the time plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice action. Plaintiffs properly served appellants, as well as the hospital, by delivering copies of the summons and complaint to the hospital’s Department of Risk Management and leaving them with the Coordinator of Risk Management, and thereafter mailing copies for each defendant.

Although appellants contend that their actual place of business is located in the Bronx Lebanon buildings where they provide medical services, for purposes of service of process pursuant to CPLR 308 (2), Bronx Lebanon’s Risk Management Office constitutes their “actual place of business” *(see Colon v Beekman Downtown Hosp.,*111 AD2d 841 [2d Dept 1985]; *see also Leung v New York Univ.,*2016 WL 1084141, *8-9, 2016 US Dist LEXIS 34764, *27-29 [SD NY, Mar. 17, 2016, 08-cv-05150 (GBD)]; *Scheib v Curran,*227 AD2d 328 [1st Dept 1996], *affd*
      *44789 NY2d 968 [1997]; *cf. Glasser v Keller,*149 Misc 2d 875, 878-879 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1991], *affd on opinion below*197 AD2d 561 [2d Dept 1993]). The Risk Management Coordinator accepted service on behalf of defendant Bronx Lebanon, which was sued as the individual appellants’ employer, to be liable for their actions pursuant to respondeat superior (see *Leung,*2016 WL 1084141, *8-9, 2016 US Dist LEXIS 34764, *27-29). The Risk Management Department was well suited to accept process on behalf of the hospital’s employees *(see DiGiuseppe v DiGiuseppe,*70 Misc 2d 188 [Civ Ct, NY County 1972] [personnel office]; *Leung*[general counsel’s office]).

In the cases relied on by appellants, the defendant doctors were not employed by the hospital where service was attempted, and thus service was not proper pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) (see *Samuel v Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr.,*88 AD3d 979 [2d Dept 2011], *lv denied*19 NY3d 810 [2012]; *Kearney v Neurosurgeons of N.Y.,*31 AD3d 390 [2d Dept 2006]).

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
No. 10-6603.

#### Geoffrey L. Rashaw-Bey, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

562 U.S. 991, 131 S. Ct. 444,

178 L. Ed. 2d 341,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8209,

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2

Section 1350 Certification,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 1, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Peter S. Teshima, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.



|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                              
|/S/    PETER S. TESHIMA                                                       
|Peter S. Teshima Corporate Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

March 12, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# C_2015034EN.01004701.xml

| 2.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 34/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/47

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — CZ v ESMA

(Case F-80/13) (1)

1

((Civil service - Recruitment - Temporary agents - Extension of the probation period - Dismissal at the end of the probation period))

(2015/C 034/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CZ (represented by: O. Kress and S. Bassis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) (represented by: R. Vasileva, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Firstly, annulment of the decision to extend the applicant’s probation period and of the subsequent decision to dismiss him and, secondly, application for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Securities and Markets Authority to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by CZ. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Securities and Markets Authority to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by CZ.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013, p. 51.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS. EDWARD LeROY "SLIM" DEARDORFF, * *r ;ja f;,,jc*. : . .) ti. ! " Defendant and Appellant. rir~ i i$, G,:* CLERi( b;F ~:>j2~--",t~i:~)~ 

### couat ORDER STATE OF MOWTAPI'A,
PER CURIAM: The 

### issues raised on appeal 

### are virtually identical 

### to those addressed by this Court 

### in State v. Turk (decided March 

### 25, 1982), Mont. P.2d 

## , 39 St.Rep. 

### 584, and those 

## ' 

# - issues 

### were resolved adversely toward the defendant. Judgment af

### firmed

# . I,,,- 

### We concur: Chief Justice
(March 1, 2017 through

March 31, 2017)

#### People v Abdul-Jaleel

4th Dept: 142 AD3d 1296 (Monroe)

denied 3/6/17 (Stein, J.)
No. D-2560.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Joseph Wayne Dean.

562 U.S. 817, 131 S. Ct. 409,

178 L. Ed. 2d 273,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7516.

October 4, 2010.

Joseph Wayne Dean, of Raleigh, North Carolina, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
#### Latipac Corp., Appellant, v BHM Realty LLC et al., Respondents.

[50 NYS3d 319]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered April 27, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff purchaser failed to establish, as a matter of law, that it was entitled to a return of its deposit on a real estate contract (see *Donerail Corp. N.V. v 405 Park LLC,*100 AD3d 131, 137 [1st Dept 2012]; see *also Martocci v Schneider,*119 AD3d 746, 748 [2d Dept 2014]). Even if plaintiff had established that defendant seller was in breach of the contract, which it did not, it would still be obligated to tender performance so long as the seller had the ability to cure its default within a reasonable time (see *e.g. Ilemar Corp. v Krochmal,*44 NY2d 702, 703 [1978]; see *also Martocci,*119 AD3d at 748). Plaintiff failed to tender performance and did not afford the seller an opportunity to cure.

*467There are also issues of fact surrounding plaintiff’s ability and willingness to proceed with the sale on the closing date *(see Donerail,*100 AD3d at 138; *see also Martocci,*119 AD3d at 748), most notably because it failed to present checks or other proof that it had funds to purchase the property *(Benhamo v Marinelli,*82 AD3d 922, 923 [2d Dept 2011]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.