alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Understanding the 20-Minute Response Warning Message

**Posted: Dec. 17, 2020**

            -   Find similar NFIRSGrams:
            - Basic Module
            - Data Quality

            - Share on:
            - 
            - 
            - 

This NFIRSGram explains the 20-minute response time warning message in the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS).

The 20-minute response time warning sometimes confuses fire department personnel when they are reviewing the error report for their NFIRS incident submission. A common misconception is that this warning message prevents fire departments from saving their incident in NFIRS: it doesn’t.

Users who receive this message can save the incident in the national database. The purpose of the warning message is to make sure that the response time is legitimate and not a data entry error.

## Important points about response time standards

            - Career departments have a response time standard of 4 minutes for the arrival of a unit with first responder or higher-level capability on Emergency Medical Services calls.
            - Career departments have a response time standard of 4 minutes or less for the arrival of the first-arriving engine company at a fire suppression incident.
            - Career departments also have a response time standard of 8 minutes or less for the full deployment at a first-alarm fire suppression incident.
            - Volunteer departments have variable response time standards based upon several factors, such as their local staffing levels, their demand zone, and the number of miles they need to travel to get to the scene of the incident.

For more information about NFIRS, please contact the NFIRS Support Center: Monday – Friday between 8 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. ET, at 888-382-3827 or by email at fema-nfirshelp@fema.dhs.gov.
#                                                                         Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group sails with HMS Duncan for Mediterranean operations                                                                    

##### by Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group Public Affairs

28 November 2023
                A photo from 2019 of the Royal Navy Daring-class air-defence destroyer HMS Duncan (D37).                            190707-N-RG482-1021                            A photo from 2019 of the Royal Navy Daring-class air-defence destroyer HMS Duncan (D37).            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Courtesy PhotoVIRIN: 190707-N-RG482-2021MEDITERRANEAN SEA - Royal Navy destroyer HMS Duncan (D37) joined the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group (GRFCSG) to participate in routine operations and conduct training events in the Mediterranean Sea, Nov. 16.

This combined effort enhanced Allies’ abilities to maintain agile, capable and flexible forces in the region. Duncan, operating under the command of Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG2), conducted a replenishment-at-sea with Henry J. Kaiser-class replenishment oiler USNS Laramie (T-AO 203) and an air defense exercise with the strike group ships.

The world's largest aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) hosted the commanding officer and crew of Duncan while Sailors from Gerald R. Ford visited Duncan.

The GRFCSG and Royal Navy routinely operate together. Both ships were part of an integrated sailing event on June 5 with other NATO ships. In August, Gerald R. Ford hosted a planning conference with SNMG2 leadership in preparation to operate together in the Mediterranean for exercise Sage Wolverine. It was the first time a British aircraft landed on the new aircraft carrier. Gerald R. Ford hosted international media in support of Sage Wolverine on Aug. 9.

The GRFCSG provides an inherently flexible naval force capable of deploying across combatant commands to meet emerging missions, deter potential adversaries, reassure allies and partners, enhance security, and guarantee the free flow of global commerce. In total, the GRFCSG is deployed with more than 5,000 Sailors ready to respond globally to combatant commander tasking.

Headquartered in Naples, Italy, U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. Sixth Fleet operates U.S. naval forces in the U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) areas of responsibility. U.S. Sixth Fleet headquartered in Naples, Italy, conducts the full spectrum of joint and naval operations, often in concert with allies and interagency partners, in order to advance U.S. national interests and security and stability throughout Europe and Africa.

Tags:
**USS Gerald R. Ford
# I**~I** FRANKBRETT, Plaintiff,

v. GEORGE BUSH, 

### et aI., Defendants. 

### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED FEB - 42009 NANCYMAYERWHITTINGTON ClERK U.S. DISTRICTCOURT' 

# 09 

# 0213

This matter comes before the court onreview ofplaintiffs application to proceed 

### in formapauperis and 

### pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint. The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by 

### pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted bylawyers. 

### See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even

### pro se litigants, however, must complywith the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. 

### Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement ofthe grounds upon which the court'sjurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand forjudgment for the reliefthe pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose ofthe minimum standard ofRule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants ofthe claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine of

### resjudicata applies. 

### Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).There appear to be so many factual allegations against so many defendants that the Court cannot discern what claim or claims he brings against each defendant. The complaint does not set forth a short and plain statement ofplaintiffs claims, and, as drafted, it fails to "give the defendant fair notice ofwhat the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." 

### Conley v. 

### Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957). For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for its failure to complywith Rule 8(a). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       1,388,279
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,812
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,469,313
<PP&E>                                      19,765,104
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,921,679
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,387,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          344,441
<BONDS>                                      4,752,430
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,541,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,387,725
<SALES>                                      3,935,175
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,532,093
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,130,910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               659,185
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             481,556
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,260,442
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,260,442
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,260,442
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   125.85<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   125.85<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EARNINGS PER SHARE IS PER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
DOCSNY-271674v01 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

LUIS PILLCO (AND WIFE, ANA LUCERO 

PILLCO), 

 Plaintiff, 

 - against - 

55 WATER STREET CONDOMINIUM, et al., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

07-CV-4508-AKH 

APPEARANCE 

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: 

Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for: 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this court.

Dated: New York, New York 

 October 3, 2007 

 By:

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

 /s/ Judith R. Cohen___ 

Judith R. Cohen (JC-8614) 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

Phone: (212) 277-6500 

Fax: (212) 277-6501 

Attorney for Defendant 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

Case 1:07-cv-04508-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

    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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pro-Fac
Cooperative, Inc. for the fiscal year ended June 26, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Stephen R. Wright, General Manager, Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary of Pro-Fac Cooperative, Inc., hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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
Section 15(d), as applicable, 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 Pro-Fac
Cooperative, Inc.


Dated: September 23, 2004                          /s/ Stephen R. Wright
       ------------------                    -----------------------------------
                                             General Manager, Chief Executive
                                             Officer, Chief Financial Officer
                                             and Secretary
                                             (Principal Executive Officer and
                                             Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                           9,424
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                       679
<INVENTORY>                                     18,572
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,699
<PP&E>                                          85,579
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,140
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,775
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,210
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,796
<SALES>                                        156,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               156,373
<CGS>                                          113,723
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  136,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   723
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 222
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,038
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,953
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,085
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,085
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.92
        

</TABLE>
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-18-00290-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 360th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 360-596726-16

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Pittman, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M. AND M.M., CHILDREN
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 14, 2018, Appellant B.M. (Father) filed a notice of his intent to 

appeal the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to A.M. and M.M. Prior to 

the termination of his parental rights, Father was convicted of continuing sexual abuse 

of A.M., and he is currently incarcerated. By letter dated October 1, 2018, and 

addressed to Father’s address at the Clements Unit in Amarillo (as listed in his notice 

of appeal), we notified Father that he had not paid the filing fee required by appellate 

procedure rule 5. Tex. R. App. P. 5. We cautioned that if the fee was not paid by 

October 11, 2018, we would dismiss the case. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

The October 1 letter was returned to this court with a notation that Father had 

been transferred from the Clements Unit pursuant to a bench warrant; this court 

subsequently determined that Father was being held in the Tarrant County Jail. The

notice was forwarded to Father at the Tarrant County Jail on October 15, 2018. As of 

today’s date, Father has not paid the filing fee.

We therefore dismiss this appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).1

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice

Delivered: November 21, 2018

 

1On October 22, 2018, Father filed a “Request for Deadline Extension” in 

which he asserted that he had not received notice of the trial court’s judgment and 

therefore was entitled to an extension of any appellate deadlines running from the 

date of the signing of the judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.2. Father is mistaken, as he 

attached the judgment to the notice of appeal that he filed on September 14, 2018. 

We therefore deny his request for a rule 4.2 extension.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 837 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 11, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building located at 799 United 

Nations Plaza in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Ronald 

H. Brown United States Mission to the United Nations 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HR 837 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building located at 799 United Nations 

3 Plaza in New York, New York, shall be known and des4 ignated as the ‘‘Ronald H. Brown United States Mission 

5 to the United Nations Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

9 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

10 a reference to the ‘‘Ronald H. Brown United States Mis11 sion to the United Nations Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 10, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
**Navy DHA Program Menu**

                    - DHA Home
                    - Sailor Guidance
                    - Command Guidance
                    - Healthcare Provider Guidance
                    - DHA Coordinator Training
                    - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
                    - Points of Contact

**Contact DHA Representatives **

----

    USFF is the executive agent for the DHA Processeric.m.labat.civ@us.navy.mil
christian.g.sanchez.ctr@us.navy.mil
Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center Website
 

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      49,102,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,354,000<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,830,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            75,034,000
<PP&E>                                      19,074,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,792,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              88,692,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       45,503,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,003,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,402,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                88,692,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            89,753,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              104,477,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            35,980,000<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             521,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             20,735,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 15,469,00
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,266,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,266,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50
<FN>
<F1>Accounts receivable are stated at net of allowance for doubtful accounts.
<F2>Comprised of $665,000 of interest income, $35,386,000 gain on sale of Retail
Business and $71,000 of exchange loss.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 12.1
 PROLOGIS, Inc.
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
(Dollar amounts in thousands)
 Six MonthsEndedJune 30,
    
    
    Year Ended December 31,2011
    
    
    2010
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006Earnings (loss) from continuing operations
    
    $
    (202,996
    )
    
    $
    (1,581,944
    )
    
    $
    (345,911
    )
    
    $
    (359,356
    )
    
    $
    852,641
    
    
    $
    608,663Add (Deduct):Fixed charges
    
    
    232,377
    
    
    
    518,399
    
    
    
    471,667
    
    
    
    557,330
    
    
    
    515,472
    
    
    
    391,762Capitalized interest
    
    
    (23,807
    )
    
    
    (53,661
    )
    
    
    (94,205
    )
    
    
    (168,782
    )
    
    
    (123,880
    )
    
    
    (95,635
    )Earnings from unconsolidated investees, net
    
    
    (25,040
    )
    
    
    (23,678
    )
    
    
    (28,059
    )
    
    
    55,774
    
    
    
    (94,453
    )
    
    
    (93,055
    )Distributed income from equity investees
    
    
    24,850
    
    
    
    27,404
    
    
    
    63,885
    
    
    
    50,042
    
    
    
    98,134
    
    
    
    86,372Income taxes
    
    
    12,798
    
    
    
    (30,499
    )
    
    
    5,975
    
    
    
    68,011
    
    
    
    66,855
    
    
    
    29,786Earnings (loss), as adjusted
    
    $
    18,182
    
    
    $
    (1,143,979
    )
    
    $
    73,352
    
    
    $
    203,019
    
    
    $
    1,314,769
    
    
    $
    927,893Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    203,621
    
    
    $
    461,166
    
    
    $
    373,305
    
    
    $
    385,065
    
    
    $
    388,746
    
    
    $
    294,063Capitalized interest
    
    
    23,807
    
    
    
    53,661
    
    
    
    94,205
    
    
    
    168,782
    
    
    
    123,880
    
    
    
    95,635Portion of rents representative of the interest factor
    
    
    4,949
    
    
    
    3,572
    
    
    
    4,157
    
    
    
    3,483
    
    
    
    2,846
    
    
    
    2,064Total fixed charges
    
    $
    232,377
    
    
    $
    518,399
    
    
    $
    471,667
    
    
    $
    557,330
    
    
    $
    515,472
    
    
    $
    391,762Ratio of earnings (loss), as adjusted, to fixed charges
    
    
    (a
    )
    
    
    (a
    )
    
    
    (a
    )
    
    
    (a
    )
    
    
    2.6
    
    
    
    2.4
 (a)
    
    Our combined fixed charges exceeded our earnings, as adjusted, by $214.2 million
for the six months ended June 30, 2011. The loss from continuing operations for 2010, 2009 and
2008 includes impairment charges of $1.1 billion, $495.2 million, and $703.5 million, respectively,
that are discussed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K. Due to these impairment charges, our combined
fixed charges and preferred share dividends exceed our earnings, as adjusted, by $1.7 billion,
$398.3 million and $354.3 million for 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Case 1:07-cv-01659-AKH Document 17 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-01659-AKH Document 17 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 2