alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Black History Month Employee Spotlight: Da'Laine Simpson

/ Published Feb. 7, 2023
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
In honor of Black History Month, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution spotlights Da’Laine Simpson, a distribution process worker at DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania.

Simpson has worked at DLA Distribution Susquehanna since 2008. While working at DDSP, he has become the President of AFGE Local 2004 and started the non-profit organization Bro2Go.

“In 2017, like Martin Luther King Jr., I too, had a dream,” Simpson said. “I started a non-profit organization called Bro2Go, which helps formerly incarcerated adults and at-risk youth. We offer one-on-one mentoring and make sure they have all the essential tools and life skills that they will need to succeed. We currently serve Dauphin, York, and Cumberland counties in Pennsylvania and are looking to further expand within the state and other cities in the U.S.”

Simpson believes that it is extremely important to recognize Black History Month because it is a time to reflect and recognize the important achievements African American leaders have made throughout history.

“Black History Month is a time to reflect and remember the great African American leaders of yesteryear. Not just leaders from our past, but the ones that are here today as well. It is important that DLA recognizes Black History Month to remind the nation of the important roles that we as Black people played in the success of this nation. People forget and it is easy to forget things that have taken place over time.”

A common misconception about Black History that Simpson would like to correct is that Black History did not start when African Americans were brought into the Americas as slaves.

“Our history did not just start when we were brought to this country against our will in captivity. We were MUCH, MUCH MORE than that! We were involved in the starting of the civilized nations of the ancient world. The Americas were not our beginning."

When asked what the hardest part of discussing race issues in America was for him, Simpson stated that, “The hardest part is that whenever you raise the issue of race today, people immediately perceive you as a racist. However, racism cannot be defeated if it’s not talked about. Change can only occur when conversations happen.”

While it is important to Simpson for DLA to recognize Black History Month, it is also important to him that the DLA Distribution workforce remembers that there is still room for improvement.

“The work for all of us, regardless of race is not done. The things that the Black Trailblazers and the Black Freedom Fighters stood for, many of those same problems and hurdles still exist today.”
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-50162 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ALFONSO HUMBERTO GONZALEZ-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:12-CR-2027-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alfonso Humberto Gonzalez-Medina appeals the sentence imposed for his conviction for importation o f 50 kilograms of more o r marijuana. He contends t h a t his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it was greater tha n necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district c ou r t s e n t e nced him to 30 months o f imprisonment, the bottom of his advisory guidelines range, a nd three years of nonreporting supervised release. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Nov em ber 21, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-50162 Document: 00512449789 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2013No. 13-50162

The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed u n d e r an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United S tates , 5 52 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Because Gonzalez-Medina’s sentence was within his advisory guidelines range, his sentence is presumptively reasonable. See United S tates v. Gomez-Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Gonzalez-Medina first contends that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply to w ithin-guidelines sentences calculated under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the guideline which applies t o drug offenses such as his, because § 2D1.1 is not b a s ed on e mpirical data or sentencing research. Th a t argument is foreclosed under circuit precedent. See United States v. Duarte , 569 F .3d 5 2 8 , 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). Next, Gonzalez-Medina argues that his 3 0-month sente n c e was substantively unreasonable b ecause § 2D1.1 lacks an empirical basis, he was a first time offender with a limited role in a n onviolent drug crim e , he became involved in the drug operation because of financial di fficulties, t he collateral
consequences of h is conviction included losing his Laser Visa card and becoming subject to removal from the United States, and his age made i t unlikely that he would commit future crimes. The district court listened to Gonza l e z - Medina’s arguments for a lesser sentence but f

oun d t hat a 30-month sentence was appropriate. “[T]he sentencing judge is in a superior position to f ind facts and j u d g e t h eir import under § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendan t

. ” United S tates v. Campos-Maldonado , 531 F .3d 3 3 7 , 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Gonzalez-Medina has not shown that his sentence was an abuse of discretion. See id. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-50162 Document: 00512449789 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2013
No. 10-584.

#### Mary Jasso, Petitioner v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, et al.

562 U.S. 1138, 131 S. Ct. 933,

178 L. Ed. 2d 753,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 368.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 636.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 21, 2009 

d1214 

Order 

 

December 21, 2009 

139850 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139850 

 COA: 285565 

Oakland CC: 2007-218368-FH 

IVAN JERMAINE MOSLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 3, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2668 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2668

 To amend section 330B of the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize 
     special programs for Type I diabetes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2019

  Ms. DeGette (for herself, Mr. Reed, Mr. O'Halleran, and Mr. Mullin) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 330B of the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize 
     special programs for Type I diabetes, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Special Diabetes Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAMS FOR TYPE I 
              DIABETES.

    Section 330B(b)(2)(D) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
254c-2(b)(2)(D)) is amended after ``$150,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2018 and 2019'' by inserting ``and $200,000,000 for each of 
fiscal years 2020 through 2024''.
                                 <all>
```
S91G0411.

#### RIDCO EXTERMINATING COMPANY, INC. v. STILTJES.

(409 SE2d 847)

Decided November 1, 1991 —

Reconsideration denied November 22, 1991.

*Lefkoff, Duncan, Grimes & Dermer, John R. Grimes,*for appel*698lee.

*697Smith, Presiding Justice.

When this case and the wrongful death case of *Stiltjes v. Ridco Exterminating Co.,*192 Ga. App. 778 (386 SE2d 696) (1989), came on to be heard before the trial court, defendant Ridco moved to join these two cases. The trial judge denied Ridco’s motion holding that the two cases were “separate and distinct causes of action which seek different damages.” After the wrongful death case, *Stiltjes,*supra, had been disposed of and this case came on for trial, the trial court, contrary to its original ruling, granted summary judgment to. defendant Ridco. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding for all practical purposes, the same as the trial court did in denying the appellant’s motion to consolidate.

Certiorari was granted in this case to view, in light of *Stenger v. Grimes,*260 Ga. 838 (400 SE2d 318) (1991), the Court of Appeals’ opinion reversing the grant of a summary judgment to appellant in the trial court. We affirm.

When the trial court denied the motion to consolidate, *Stenger,*supra, had not been decided by this Court. The *Stenger*case would have controlled had the trial court had the benefit of it at the time of its initial ruling. However, it did not and it would be unfair to deny the appellant her day in court because *Stenger*had not been decided at that time. Substantial justice dictates that Mrs. Stiltjes be granted a new trial in her present case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Bell, Hunt, and Fletcher, JJ., who concur in the judgment only.*
#### Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Successor by Merger to Wachovia Mortgage FSB, Formerly Known as World Savings Bank, FSB, Plaintiff, v Angela DeCesare, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[48 NYS3d 497]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Angela DeCesare appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered March 24, 2016, which denied her unopposed motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate an order of reference of the same court dated October 21, 2014, entered upon her failure to appear or answer the complaint, and pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order entered March 24, 2016, is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion of the defendant Angela DeCesare pursuant to CPLR 5014 (a) (4) to vacate the order of reference dated October 21, 2014, and pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted, and the order of reference dated October 21, 2014, is vacated.

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage on property owned by the defendant Angela DeCesare and obtained an order of reference upon DeCesare’s failure to appear or answer the complaint. Thereafter, DeCesare moved pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate the order of reference and pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting that she was never served with the summons and complaint. The plaintiff did not oppose the motion. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

The detailed and specific evidence submitted by DeCesare in support of her motion was sufficient to rebut the allegations contained in the process server’s affidavit of service, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff to establish jurisdiction at a hearing by a preponderance of the evidence (see *Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Chaplin,*65 AD3d 588, 589 [2009]; *Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Tsoukas,*303 AD2d 343, 344 [2003]). However, because the plaintiff, which was well aware of the existence of the motion, elected not to file any opposition papers, no hearing was required, and the Supreme Court should have granted DeCesare’s unopposed motion and vacated *762the order of reference *(see Walter v Jones, Sledzik, Garneau & Nardone, LLP,*67 AD3d 671 [2009]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5565.

#### Zachary Deveau, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 929, 131 S. Ct. 320,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7207.

178 L. Ed. 2d 208,

October 4, 2010.

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

05/17/2016

46 EAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 136 A.3d 1036
Exhibit 32.2

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 AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Murray Nicol, Vice President and chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 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/ MURRAY NICOL                                                       
|Murray Nicol Vice President and chief financial
officer August 14, 2006



17
# DLA Troop Support Commander honors veterans, their impact on his life

/ Published Nov. 23, 2023
PHILADELPHIA, 
The Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support held a Veterans Day ceremony Nov. 20 to honor and thank those who served, and to acknowledge their contributions to the nation.

Keynote speaker, DLA Troop Support Commander Army Col. Landis C. Maddox, who was on temporary duty overseas during the federally observed holiday, said it was still important to recognize the men and women who served.

“Although the official holiday was observed a little over a week ago,” he said, “it is always the right time to show appreciation for those who wore the uniform and have defended this great nation.”

Maddox spoke about the impact that veterans have made on the nation, as well as the impact they made on his life.

“I have met so many phenomenal members of the military and veterans that have influenced me as a soldier, as a leader and as a person,” he said. “Today I am going to talk about two of them.”        

Maddox spoke about Pat Tillman, who walked away from a multi-million-dollar contract, after playing four seasons in the NFL, to join the Army in 2022. As an Army Ranger he made multiple deployments. He lost his life in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Maddox also spoke of his own stepfather, a Marine Corps veteran, who was injured in combat.

“I met him when he was dating my mom, about 20 years ago, and he said that he was a Marine and had received two medals of valor,” Maddox said. “And I was like, ‘medals of valor, what are you talking about?’”

His stepfather was talking about two purple hearts he received for his actions in combat, where he was shot in the head and took on shrapnel.

 “He showed them to me, and I was astonished,” Maddox said. “I think the world of him. I call him ‘stepdad.’ Actually, the other day I called him ‘dad’ because I hold him in such high esteem for the things, he has done for our country.”

As commander of DLA Troop Support, where about 43% of the workforce are veterans, Maddox said he could see the difference veterans make in the organization’s mission every day.

“To have so many employees who, at one time, benefitted from the support we provide, to now be on the other end, providing the support is definitely a positive,” he said. “Their viewpoint of being in the shoes of our customers is extremely valuable and an asset to the success of our mission as an organization.”

Maddox ended his speech by thanking veterans all over the world for their service.

“The love of country that our veterans have, keep our systems moving and they encourage those of us who still wear the uniform to do our very best as we carry out their great legacy,” Maddox said. “Today, and every day, we live in freedom because of our veterans.”

The event concluded with a ceremonial laying of a wreath.
No. 10-319.

#### Jessica Hankey, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Ryan Rohrbaugh, Petitioner v. Wexford Health Sources, et al.

562 U.S. 1029, 131 S. Ct. 568,

178 L. Ed. 2d 414,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8794.

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 165.
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:
August 6, 2010

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


---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION




The undersigned officer of Albany Molecular Research, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.




Date: May 10, 2011/s/ Thomas E. D’AmbraName: Thomas E. D’Ambra, Ph.D.Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
# DLA senior enlisted leader visits C&T uniform producers

/ Published Aug. 21, 2015
VINELAND, New Jersey,
#### HSBC Bank USA, National Association, Respondent, v Archibong Archibong et al., Defendants, and Delia Archibong, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 625]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Delia Archibong appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered May 12, 2015, as denied that branch of her motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing on the issue of whether the defendant Delia Archibong was properly served with process pursuant to CPLR 308 (2), and a new determination thereafter of that branch of her motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

“A process server’s affidavit of service ordinarily constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service” *(Rosemark Contrs., Inc. v Ness,*149 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Emigrant Bank v Ramasir,*145 AD3d 856, 857 [2016]; *U.S. Bank, N.A. v Tauber,*140 AD3d 1154, 1155 [2016]; *FV-1, Inc. v Reid,*138 AD3d 922, 923 [2016]). “Bare and *663unsubstantiated denials are insufficient to rebut the presumption of service” *(Rosemark Contrs., Inc. v Ness,*149 AD3d at 1116; *see Wachovia Bank, N.A. v Greenberg,*138 AD3d 984, 985 [2016]; *Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Christie,*83 AD3d 824, 825 [2011]). “However, a sworn denial of service containing specific facts generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the affidavit of service and necessitates a hearing” *(Rosemark Contrs., Inc. v Ness,*149 AD3d at 1116; *see Wachovia Bank, N.A. v Greenberg,*138 AD3d at 985; *FV-1, Inc. v Reid,*138 AD3d at 923). “If an issue regarding service turns upon a question of credibility, a hearing should be held to render a determination on this issue” *(Rosemark Contrs., Inc. v Ness,*149 AD3d at 1116; *see FV-1, Inc. v Reid,*138 AD3d at 924).

Here, the Supreme Court erred in determining that branch of the motion of the defendant Delia Archibong (hereinafter the defendant) which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction without first conducting a hearing. The defendant demonstrated her entitlement to a hearing on the issue of service through her affidavit, in which she denied that she knew anyone by the name of Tom Jonel, the person allegedly served at her house, that no one by that name or with that physical description lived in her house, and that she was the only person at home when the summons and complaint were allegedly served *(see Wachovia Bank, N.A. v Greenberg,*138 AD3d at 985; *Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Christie,*83 AD3d at 825).

Rivera, J.P., Roman, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.