alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      26,028,000
<SECURITIES>                                58,192,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,232,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (2,280,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,842,000
<PP&E>                                     132,783,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (23,044,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             312,915,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       79,289,000
<BONDS>                                    175,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       402,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,969,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               312,915,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,356,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               51,700,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            87,321,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,534,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (122,789,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (272,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (123,061,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                             (123,061,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.12)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Henry Torres, Appellant, v Melissa Corniel, Respondent.

[60 NYS3d 834]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Rachel E. Tanguay, J.), entered September 9, 2016. The order, upon remittal, limited the incarcerated father’s in-person visitation with his child to once every other month for one hour *655and directed that the father be permitted to write letters and send cards to the child not more than twice per month, that the father be permitted to send gifts to the child not in excess of $50, not more than once every other month, and that the father be permitted to have telephone contact with the child once every other month.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father, who is incarcerated, petitioned for visitation with his child. He appealed from an order of the Family Court dated February 25, 2014, which, after a hearing, granted his petition for visitation only to the extent of awarding him visitation by means of letters, cards, gifts, and telephone calls. In an order dated February 4, 2015, this Court reversed the order dated February 25, 2014, insofar as appealed from, and remitted the matter to the Family Court, Rockland County, for further proceedings to establish an appropriate in-person visitation schedule *(see Matter of Torres v Pascuzzi-Corniel,*125 AD3d 675 [2015]). On February 23, 2015, the Family Court, without the father’s appearance in court, awarded the father in-person visitation with the child once every other month. Thereafter, the Family Court, in effect, vacated the order dated February 23, 2015, and, upon the father’s appearance in court and his consent to proceed without a hearing, issued the order from which the father now appeals.

The father’s contention that the Family Court erred in issuing a determination without holding a hearing lacks merit, as the father and his attorney consented to the court making a determination, inter alia, based upon its review of the transcript of the prior hearing and the arguments made by the parties during the court appearance.

The Family Court’s conclusion that it was in the child’s best interests to limit his visits with the father in prison to once every other month for one hour is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see *Matter of Granger v Misercola,*96 AD3d 1694, 1695 [2012], *affd*21 NY3d 86 [2013]; *Matter of Nicole J.R. v Jason M.R.,*81 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2011]; *Matter of Baker v Blanchard,*74 AD3d 1427, 1429 [2010]; *Matter of Garraway v Laforet,*68 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2009]).

While the attorney for the child contends that there has been a change of circumstances since the Family Court issued its determination, the question of the father’s move from one prison to another should have been brought to the attention of the court by means of a modification petition *(see Matter of Granger v Misercola,*21 NY3d at 92).

Dillon, J.R, Chambers, Cohen and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
# DLA Distribution Red River honors Veterans

/ Published Nov. 24, 2015
RED RIVER, Texas, 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Red River, Texas, hosts an annual Veterans Day event to show appreciation to all veterans for their hard work and dedication throughout the year providing the most effective, efficient and best value logistics services for the warfighters.
The ceremony, emceed by Carla Mericle began with the national anthem performed by DLA Distribution Red River employee Joe Cummings. Additionally, Robert Hinckley, a DLA Distribution Red River employee and Vietnam veteran recited “The Name on the Wall,” a poem about a soldier who died in Vietnam.

“Over a third of the work force consists of veterans,” explained DLA Distribution Red River commander Army Lt. Col. Anthony Stoeger. “It is fitting that we recognize those who not only servied in the armed forces, but continue to serve our country everyday by supporting the warfighters throughout the world.”

The program concluded with a cake cutting ceremony consisting of four cakes to represent each military branch; Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force. A slide show featuring DLA Distribution Red River’s veterans was featured during the event.

“As a veteran, I look forward to this program each year,” said Willie Houff, supply management specialist supervisor. “It is a great time to see DLA Distribution Red River veterans all in the same place. It is also a reminder that everyone still cares for our veterans by making this event happen and giving our veterans some recognition for their service.”
# Weapons qualification targets now available through Document Services Online

/ Published Oct. 18, 2022
New Cumberland, Pa, 
Military customers can now order over 50 types of weapons qualification targets from Defense Logistics Agency Document Services Online, the Defense Department’s primary website for printing services.

Previously, targets had to be ordered through DLA Troop Support. Adding targets to the DSO website makes ordering easier for customers who already use other DLA printing services. To shop the target catalog, customers should log into DSO and click on Target Printing in the left menu.                 190319-A-PZ950-014                            Georgia Army National Guardsman Sgt. Wyatt Hayes, instructor, Georgia National Guard Marksmanship Unit, and Sgt. Zachary Burnette, mortarman, with the Winder-based Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment discuss shot groupings during battlesight zero training at the Georgia National Guard Small Arms Leader Course.  Soldier are required to place nine rounds into an area the size of a quarter in order to advance.U.S. Army National Guard photo by Sgt. 1st Class R.J. Lannom Jr.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Sgt. 1st Class R.J. Lannom JrVIRIN: 190319-A-PZ950-014

The targets provide a diagnostic guide during weapons qualification to help troops make necessary adjustments for improving marksmanship. DLA’s target selection continually evolves as new weapons systems are fielded. The current selection includes small arms, heavy arms and long-range targets, as well as aerial targets that are towed behind boats. 

The DLA print facility at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, can print items in a range of sizes. This includes 1-inch-by-1-inch self-adhesive pasters used to repair bullet holes and prolong the use of a target, as well as 6-foot-by-6-foot heavy arms and aerial targets. DLA also offers double-sided targets, weather resistant paper and a variety of colors. Targets are printed on demand, with no limit on order size, and shipped from the facility. 

“The team at the Rock Island Arsenal target printing facility is proud to provide these materials to all of the armed forces and other DOD organizations that use training aids,” Production Supervisor John Turner said. “Our mission is to serve the warfighter by making sure they have what they need to be their best.”

Rock Island Arsenal has produced targets for 140 years, and DLA Document Services assumed target management in 1993. DLA Document Services also became DOD’s primary provider for printing services in 1997.                 DLA Document Services employees printing weapons qualification targets at Rock Island Arsenal, Ill.                            DLA prints targets at Rock Island Arsenal                            DLA Document Services employees printing weapons qualification targets at Rock Island Arsenal, Ill.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Amber McSherryVIRIN: 200924-D-HW629-047
#### Martin Stoner, Appellant, v Atlantic Realty Apts., LLC, et al., Respondents.

[61 NYS3d 899]

*553Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered September 23, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for an injunction, for sanctions, and for leave to amend an amended complaint, and granted defendants’ cross motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 8, 2016, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiffs motion to renew the prior motion and cross motions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly granted the cross motions to dismiss the amended complaint, because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies *(see Town of Oyster Bay v Kirkland,*19 NY3d 1035, 1038 [2012], *cert denied*568 US 1213 [2013]). Moreover, the amended complaint did not seek any relief against defendant the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR).

The motion court correctly denied plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief because he failed to show a probability of success on the merits, the danger of irreparable injury, and a balance of equities in his favor *(see Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc.,*4 NY3d 839, 840 [2005]).

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend the amended complaint to assert a claim under 42 USC § 1983 against Woody Pascal, a DHCR official. The proposed claim is “palpably insufficient” as a matter of law *(MBIA Ins. Corp. v Grey stone & Co., Inc.,*74 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2010]), since neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities, such as Pascal, are “person[s]” within the meaning of 42 USC § 1983*(see Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police,*491 US 58 [1989]).

Plaintiffs motion for renewal was properly denied because he failed to present a reasonable excuse for not presenting the new facts on the prior motion and he failed to show that the new facts would have changed the prior determination *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; *American Audio Serv. Bur. Inc. v AT & T Corp.,*33 AD3d 473, 476 [1st Dept 2006], *appeal dismissed*2007 NY Slip Op 68096[U] [1st Dept 2007]).

No appeal lies from the denial of plaintiffs motion to reargue *(see Lopez v Post Mgt. LLC,*68 AD3d 671 [1st Dept 2009]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, including his request for sanctions, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Odell B.-P., Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 886]

*535Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John W. Carter, J.), entered on or about April 1, 2015, which found that defendant currently suffers from a dangerous mental disorder and committed him to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health for confinement in a secure psychiatric facility for six months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

After defendant was charged with possession of ammunition and criminal possession of a weapon in the second, third and fourth degrees, he was examined by a psychiatrist hired by the prosecutor and a psychologist hired by the defense. Based on their reports, the trial court accepted a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect. Thereafter, in accordance with CPL 330.20 (2), the court immediately issued an examination order for defendant to be examined by two qualified psychiatric examiners. Both doctors concluded that defendant was dangerously mentally ill and required confinement in a secure facility.

We find that defendant received the effective assistance of counsel at the initial hearing, which was properly conducted in accordance with CPL 330.20 (6). At the hearing, defense counsel explained that she would not challenge the findings that defendant was dangerously mentally ill because the defense psychologist who examined defendant before his plea had told counsel that he would not contest the findings. Defense counsel’s decision not to challenge the findings did not deny defendant of “meaningful representation” at the initial hearing, as counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make an argument that had little or no chance of success *(People v Caban,*5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]).

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
#### Com. v. Somwang Laos Kakhankham

05/03/2016

900 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 132 A.3d 986
No. 10-5465.

#### Robert J. Page, Petitioner v. Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary.

562 U.S. 923, 131 S. Ct. 303,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7252.

178 L. Ed. 2d 197,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-232.

#### The Bank of New York Mellon, et al., Petitioners v. Frederick J. Grede, as Trustee of the Sentinel Liquidation Trust.

562 U.S. 982, 131 S. Ct. 418,

178 L. Ed. 2d 323,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8221.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 598 F.3d 899.
No. 10-6156.

#### Morris Scott Holmes, Petitioner v. Billy O. Brown, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 520,

178 L. Ed. 2d 384,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8585,

November 1, 2010.

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

Calendar No. 683

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2372

To reauthorize for three years the Commission on Civil Rights, and for

other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 9 (legislative day, AUGUST 8), 1994

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary

SEPTEMBER 28 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Reported by Mr. BIDEN, without amendment

A BILL

To reauthorize for three years the Commission on Civil

Rights, 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 ‘‘Civil Rights Commis5 sion Reauthorization Act of 1994’’.
2

•S 2372 RS

1 SEC. 2. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS.

2 Section 5(a) of the United States Commission on

3 Civil Rights Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1975c(a)) is amended

4 to read as follows:

5 ‘‘(a) INVESTIGATORY AND OTHER DUTIES.—The

6 Commission shall—

7 ‘‘(1) investigate allegations, in writing, under

8 oath or affirmation, relating to deprivations of civil

9 rights based on color, race, religion, sex, age, disabil10 ity, or national origin, or as a result of any pattern

11 or practice of fraud, or denial of the right to vote

12 and have votes counted; and

13 ‘‘(2) study, collect, make appraisals of, serve as

14 a national clearinghouse for information on, and

15 prepare public service announcements and advertis16 ing campaigns to discourage discrimination or the

17 denial of equal protection of the laws, including the

18 administration of justice, based on color, race, reli19 gion, sex, age, disability, or national origin.’’.

20 SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION.

21 Section 7 of the United States Commission on Civil

22 Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 1975e) is amended to read as

23 follows:

24 ‘‘SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

25 ‘‘There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out

26 this Act $9,500,000 for fiscal year 1995.’’.
3

•S 2372 RS

1 SEC. 4. TERMINATION.

2 Section 8 of the United States Commission on Civil

3 Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 1973f) is amended by striking

4 ‘‘1994’’ and inserting ‘‘1997’’.
Calendar No. 683

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2372

A BILL

To reauthorize for three years the Commission on

Civil Rights, and for other purposes.

SEPTEMBER 28 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Reported without amendment
# DLA Distribution Bahrain military superintendent retires

/ Published Sept. 15, 2021
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Air Force MSgt. Clarence Y. Fang began his military career in Feb. 1998, when he enlisted in the Air Force. His first deployment was with the 366th Supply Squadron in Mountain Home, Idaho. Throughout his military career, he was deployed to South Korea, Guam, Japan, California, Germany and Virginia.

Fang’s DLA career began in 2018, where he became the superintendent of DLA Distribution Bahrain.

As the superintendent of DDNB, Fang enhanced the capabilities of the organization through his engaged leadership and strategic vision of improvement. His initiatives greatly contributed to the overall military community and the cultural environment of DDNB. The processes that he developed and put in place within the classified mapping vaults for security and accountability will leave a positive impression at the command for years to come. Using innovation and resourcefulness, he saved the Defense Department over $137,000 in two self-help projects and the disestablishment of a classified vault storage location.

Fang also volunteered numerous hours to those in dire need at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and helped enforce safety and security as a volunteer with the Navy shore patrol.

Fang’s decorations include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal (2), Army Commendation Medal, Air Force Achievement Medal (2), Air Force Good Conduct Medal (8), National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal and the Air Force Expeditionary Service Ribbon with Gold Border (6).

During his retirement ceremony, Fang received his end of service award and a Bahrain paddle.

                Air Force MSgt. Clarence Y. Fang, left, and Cmdr. Jeretta R. Dillon, right, cut the cake at Fang’s retirement ceremony August 8, 2021. The cake is an Ube cake, a Philipino stable made from purple yams.                            DLA Distribution Bahrain military superintendent retires                            Air Force MSgt. Clarence Y. Fang, left, and Cmdr. Jeretta R. Dillon, right, cut the cake at Fang’s retirement ceremony August 8, 2021. The cake is an Ube cake, a Philipino stable made from purple yams.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DLA Distribution Public AffairsVIRIN: 210914-D-D0441-0002
No. 10-6007.

#### Terrance Lavar Davis, Petitioner v. Tennessee.

562 U.S. 985, 131 S. Ct. 423,

178 L. Ed. 2d 330,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8233.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Middle Division, denied.

Same case below, 313 S.W.3d 751.
No. 09-11494.

#### In re Rodney Skurdal, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 825, 131 S. Ct. 209,

178 L. Ed. 2d 256,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7778.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
No. 09-11003.

#### Naomi Sandres, Petitioner v. Christine A. Noland, Magistrate Judge, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, et al.

562 U.S. 995, 131 S. Ct. 444,

178 L. Ed. 2d 345,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8180.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 561 U.S. 1034, 130 S. Ct. 3538, 177 L. Ed. 2d 1107, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5411.
# Pearl Harbor’s Anderson announced as employee of the quarter 

/ Published March 31, 2016
PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii, 
DLA Distribution Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, employee Ikaika Anderson has been named DLA Distribution’s Employee of the Quarter for first quarter, fiscal year 2016, for his performance and teamwork as a supply technician on the Inventory Support Team.  

“A top performer who personifies the team concept and is highly respected by peers and superiors, Mr. Anderson completes the most difficult challenges with a ‘can do’ attitude and eagerness to assist his teammates,” said supervisor Robert Kirts.  

While the Inventory Support Team was executing a wall-to-wall inventory of its retail operation’s 30,000 line items, Anderson single-handedly shouldered nearly all of wholesale physical counts and location surveys.  Keeping the annual location survey on track, he completed 26 percent, or roughly 32,500 surveys, with a 99.8 percent validity rate.  He also continued to conduct random floor- to-book counts on nearly 600 locations, resulting in a 95.4 percent accuracy rate.  

Additionally, Anderson teamed with the Inventory Research Team and Operations Division in resolving an average of seven daily late lines.  Conducting an extensive search of material and communicating the results to Warehouse Operations, the material was properly stowed and ready for warfighter issue, directly contributing to the wholesale denial rate of 0.22 percent- well below the distribution goal of 0.4 percent.  

“His superior performance demonstrates the essential qualities, experience, and expertise to earn this well-deserved recognition,” said Kirts.
No. 10-5834.

#### Robert Boczkowski, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 939, 131 S. Ct. 350,

178 L. Ed. 2d 227,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7178.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 126.
**Exhibit 99.2**

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Twenty Services, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, David J. Noble, Chairman/Director and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|   |   |   |                                                                      |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/  DAVID J. NOBLE                                             |
|   |   |   |                                                                           |
|   |   |   | **David J. Noble****Chairman/Director****And Principal ExecutiveOfficer** |
|   |   |   |                                                                      |
|   |   |   | March 27, 2003                                                            |
|   |   |   |                                                                           |
|   |   |   | **Date**                                                                  |