alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Area manager Milazzo recognized

/ Published Nov. 18, 2022
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Alaska Area Manager Chris Milazzo was recently honored as Employee of the Quarter for superior performance during the final quarter of fiscal 2022. 

The former Marine Corps staff sergeant has spent seven years with the command, as an Expeditionary Site Support instructor and compliance team member in Battle Creek, Michigan, and as receiver, disposal support representative, and area manager based out of Anchorage.

In the most recent quarter, Milazzo’s leadership helped Alaska offices exceed expectations on several site production metrics, including Customer Wait Time, Unprocessed Receipts, On-The-Shelf Rate, Hazardous Waste throughput, RCN Management, and Pick-to-Ship.

“Chris has been a tremendous motivator and inspiration to his team to improve processes and productivity that have beneficially impacted the Warfighter,” wrote Kirk Buckner, the Pacific region deputy. “Chris is a proactive leader and takes initiative to communicate safety, work priorities and business processes.”  

Milazzo said he enjoys being part of the Alaska team, and he takes pride in the team’s ability to repurpose items to customers in need. He also said he was grateful to lead the agency’s disposal mission across the largest state.

“I am thankful for my supervisor giving me a chance to lead a team of professionals,” said Milazzo, who did not know he had been nominated for the award until winners were announced. “I am also truly thankful for the team that I work with. They are the reason I enjoy going in to work each and every day.”

According to Buckner, the area faced several customer challenges, personnel turnover, and limited solutions for disposal of various commodity groups during the quarter. Milazzo quickly replaced departing employees, made key safety equipment purchases and improved communication and collaboration with local units. He also oversaw changes to the area’s Reutilization, Transfer and Donation operations, including tweaks to customer pickup coordination, property prep, and audit readiness. Anchorage also “achieved the number one category for our enterprise on the Pick-to-Ship metric, which is currently at 1.3 days.”
#### People v Arnie

3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1082 (Ulster)

denied 3/17/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
#### Enrique N. Riley, as Administrator of the Estate of Patricia Riley-Cole, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v Health and Hospital Corporation et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[57 NYS3d 898]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Weston, J.), dated March 22, 2016, which granted the motion of the defendants Health and Hospital Corporation and Kings County Hospital Center pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against them for failure to timely serve a complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“To avoid dismissal of an action for failure to timely serve a complaint after a demand for the complaint has been made pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and a potentially meritorious cause of action” *(Lobel v Hilltop Vil. Coop., No. 4,*138 AD3d 938, 939 [2016]; *see Carducci v Russell,*120 AD3d 1375, 1375-1376 [2014]).

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion of the defendants Health and Hospital Corporation and Kings County Hospital Center pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against them. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their delay in serving the complaint and a potentially meritorious cause of action *(see Lobel v Hilltop Vil. Coop., No. 4,*138 AD3d at 939; *Khamis v Corporate Transp. Group, Ltd.,*135 AD3d 825, 826 [2016]; *Telian v Freund,*129 AD3d 828 [2015]; *Carducci v Russell,*120 AD3d at 1376).

*743In light of our determination, we need not address the plaintiffs’ remaining contention.

Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Boris Kupershmidt, Appellant.

[59 NYS3d 139]

Appeal by the *798defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Murphy, J.), imposed December 4, 2015, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

A defendant who has validly waived the right to appeal cannot invoke this Court’s interest of justice jurisdiction to obtain a reduced sentence *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]). Here, however, this Court is not precluded from exercising its interest of justice jurisdiction because the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. The record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to his plea of guilty *(see People v Black,*144 AD3d 935, 935-936 [2016]; *People v Pacheco,*138 AD3d 1035, 1036 [2016]; *People v Gordon,*127 AD3d 1230, 1230 [2015]; *People v Cantarero,*123 AD3d 841, 841 [2014]; *People v Bennett,*115 AD3d 973, 973 [2014]). Nor does the record demonstrate that the defendant otherwise understood the nature of the right to appeal *(cf. People v Brown,*122 AD3d 133, 144 [2014]). Furthermore, although the defendant executed a written appeal waiver form, the transcript of the plea proceeding shows that the Supreme Court did not ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the waiver or discussed it with defense counsel, or whether he was even aware of its contents (see *People v Brown,*122 AD3d at 145; see *also People v Black,*144 AD3d at 936; *People v Pacheco,*138 AD3d at 1036). Under the circumstances here, we conclude that the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to appeal (see *People v Brown,*122 AD3d 133 [2014]; see *generally People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 264-267 [2011]; *People v Ramos,*7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d at 255).

Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Sgroi, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.
# C_2016279EN.01002601.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission

(Case T-118/13) (1)

1

((Actions for annulment - State aid - Household appliances - Restructuring aid - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with certain conditions - Decision taken following the annulment by the Court of the earlier decision concerning the same procedure - Lack of individual concern - No substantial effect on the competitive position - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 279/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Whirlpool Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Wijckmans and H. Burez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, É. Gippini Fournier and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Electrolux AB (Stockholm, Sweden), represented by F. Wijckmans and H. Burez, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents) and Fagor France SA (Rueil-Malmaison, France) (represented by: J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision 2013/283/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.23839 (C 44/2007) that France plans to grant to FagarBrandt (OJ 2013 L 166, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders Whirlpool Europe BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Whirlpool Europe BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic, Electrolux AB and Fagor France SA to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic, Electrolux AB and Fagor France SA to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

1

---
2017-0880.

#### State ex rel. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. State Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. On relator’s emergency motion for an immediate preliminary injunction. Motion denied.

O’Donnell, J., dissents.

W. Scott Gwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for French, J.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  REDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC.  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (CHAPTER 98, TITLE 15 U.S.C. SS.
7241)

I,
Steven J. Janusek, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation (collectively, "registrant");

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periods covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
November 5, 2010

/s/ STEVEN J. JANUSEK Steven J. Janusek, Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Bennett, Appellant.

[67 NYS3d 461]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), rendered October 2, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of six months, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied, without granting a hearing, defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of an allegedly unlawful arrest (see *generally People v Mendoza,*82 NY2d 415 [1993]). The People provided defendant with detailed information about the undercover sale that formed the basis for his arrest. Defendant made, at most, a vague and conclusory denial of his involvement in the alleged sale, and the factual allegations supporting his motion did not address whether his innocent behavior occurred at the time of the crime or at the time of his subsequent arrest *(see People v Howell,*2 AD3d 258, 259 [1st Dept 2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 800 [2004]; *People v Hernandez,*283 AD2d 190 [1st Dept 2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 641 [2001]).

*627Defendant did not preserve his claim that he was entitled to a hearing on the suggestiveness of an identification made by an additional undercover officer who was not a party to the drug transaction, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits because the identification at issue (for which the People duly provided CPL 710.30 [1] [b] notice) was confirmatory under the principles set forth in *People v Wharton*(74 NY2d 921 [1989]).

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Gische, Tom, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.
No. 10-6214.

#### James Wesley McBroom, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 972, 131 S. Ct. 484,

178 L. Ed. 2d 306,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8012.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 435 Fed. Appx. 299.
# DLA Distribution Corpus Christi focuses on first aid training

/ Published May 13, 2015
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas, 
Several months ago, DLA Distribution Corpus Christi, Texas, determined there was a need to enhance its Automated External Defibrillator, or AED, program.  With the goal of training all willing employees to be able to respond to the vast majority of medical incidents, both at work or at home, the organization had its safety specialists officially certified to pass lifesaving skills onto others.

When a person suffers a sudden cardiac arrest their chance of survival decreases by 7 to 10 percent for each minute that passes without defibrillation.  While cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or CPR, can double or triple a victim's chances, when coupled with an AED, those chances are greatly strengthened.   AEDs can restore a normal heart rhythm in victims of sudden cardiac arrest.  

Many within the organization believe that training employees to deploy the AED and provide initial medical attention necessary after an incident could potentially save lives. “I believe this training is valuable and everyone should take it.  Not only [could] it help co-workers, but it will also benefit family members and friends,” said DLA Distribution employee Reginald Evans.

In the past, management enabled any employee who desired to become certified in first aid CPR and AEDs to do so.   Naval Air Station Corpus Christi Fire Department personnel conducted periodic classes and certified DLA Distribution Corpus Christi employees to use AEDs and administer CPR.  However, the number of Distribution employees wishing to be certified far out-weighed the fire department’s training capacity. 

As a result, DLA Distribution Corpus Christi leadership decided to have both of its DLA Distribution Corpus Christi safety specialists certified as first aid CPR and AED instructors. The certifications include adult CPR and AED, bloodborne pathogens, infant and child CPR and AED, and oxygen first aid for emergencies.  The organization is now completely self-contained with regards to first aid CPR and AED training. 

The duo’s inaugural course was conducted in early April, and was, by all accounts, very successful.  Class attendee Bryan Miller explained, “I wanted to become certified because I felt clueless as to how to respond in an emergency.  Now I know exactly what needs to be done and how to do it.”

Samantha Bailey, a DLA Distribution Corpus Christi employee and recent class graduate agreed, stating, “I feel more confident in my ability to respond to a medical emergency whether at work or outside of work.” 

The safety staff will continue to conduct training courses every quarter until every willing employee has been certified.   Future plans include expanding training coverage to include the other local DLA agencies, such as DLA Aviation and DLA Disposition Services.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2605 

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue 

a final rule adding as a class all perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 

substances with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom to the list 

of hazardous air pollutants under section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act 

(42 U.S.C. 7412(b)), and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2019 

Ms. STEVENS (for herself, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. CASTEN of Illinois, and Mr. 

KHANNA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency to issue a final rule adding as a class all 

perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances with at 

least one fully fluorinated carbon atom to the list of 

hazardous air pollutants under section 112(b) of the 

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(b)), 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2605 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prevent Release Of 

3 Toxics Emissions, Contamination, and Transfer Act of 

4 2019’’ or the ‘‘PROTECT Act of 2019’’. 

5 SEC. 2. LISTING OF PERFLUOROALKYL AND 

6 POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES AS HAZ7 ARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS. 

8 (a) LISTING.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

9 of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Envi10 ronmental Protection Agency shall issue a final rule add11 ing as a class all perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl sub12 stances with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom to 

13 the list of hazardous air pollutants under section 112(b) 

14 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(b)). 

15 (b) SOURCES CATEGORIES.—Not later than 365 days 

16 after the final rule is issued pursuant to subsection (a), 

17 the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agen18 cy shall revise the list under section 112(c)(1) of the Clean 

19 Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(c)(1)) to include categories and 

20 subcategories of major sources and area sources of 

21 perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances listed pursu22 ant to such final rule. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                SUBSIDIARIES OF
              NORTH AMERICAN GAMING AND ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           STATE OF
                                       PERCENTAGE       INCORPORATION
                    NAME                OWNERSHIP      OR ORGANIZATION
                    ----                ---------      ---------------
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                    <C>             <C>
        Ozdon Investments, Inc.             50%           Louisiana
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        River Port Truck Stop, Inc.        100%           Louisiana
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        OM Operating, L.L.C.              24.5%           Louisiana
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        River Port Truck Stop, LLC          25%           Louisiana
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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


I, Cedric Kushner, the Chief Executive Officer of Cedric Kushner Promotions,
Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
June 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Cedric Kushner Promotions, Inc. and will be retained by Cedric
Kushner Promotions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

/s/ Cedric Kushner
------------------
Name: Cedric Kushner
Title: Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)



Date: October 6, 2005
No. 10-6052.

#### Clifton Phillips, Petitioner v. David Rock, Superintendent, Upstate Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 986, 131 S. Ct. 423,

178 L. Ed. 2d 330,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8238.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
(December 23, 2003)

#### In the Matter of William S. La Bahn, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[768 NYS2d 830]—

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1981. He maintained an office for the practice of law in Oregon, where he was admitted to practice in 1990.

The Supreme Court of Oregon found respondent guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for a period of 60 days, effective October 1, 2003. Respondent neglected a civil action resulting in its dismissal for want of prosecution and he then failed to advise the client of the dismissal for over one year.

Petitioner moves to reciprocally discipline respondent *(see*22 NYCRR 806.19) and we have heard respondent in mitigation.

Under the circumstances presented, we grant petitioner’s motion and reciprocally suspend respondent from practice for a period of 60 days, effective October 1, 2003, and until further order of this Court.

Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from practice for a period of 60 days, effective October 1, 2003, and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that respondent, for the period of suspension, is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and he is forbidden from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority and from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or of any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9).