alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CHURCH CAMP FIRE**

**Safety Considerations after the Fire**

There are many hazards that remain after a wildfire, even if the fire is no longer present.  Some of these hazards may not be readily apparent.  It is important to understand these dangers and be especially careful when re-entering an area after a fire.

**Safety Tips**

· Fires may flare up without warning.  Should you see flame or heavy smoke, do not assume that fire authorities are aware it.  ***Contact the Uintah Basin Interagency Fire Center (UBIFC) at 435-789-7021 to report a wildfire****.*

Emergency 911 calls should be used in emergencies that may threaten life, accidents with injuries, or to report a****crime. 

*Note:  Some residual smoke within the fire interior is expected.  Smoke may be present for several days as a result of stumps, roots, and other surface materials being exposed to changing temperatures and wind conditions.  This activity should not pose a risk and smoke will continue to dissipate until fully consumed or extinguished by fire crews or weather.  -- **However, if in doubt as to whether to report the smoke, it is better to err on the side of caution and report it to UBIFC**.*

· Watch out for burned and standing dead trees.  These trees have burned roots and can fall without warning.  While traveling in the area, carry a chainsaw or hand saw as falling trees may block the road.

· Be especially cautious while traveling along the canyon road.  Large equipment and increased traffic should be expected.  Visibility may be reduced due to dust and residual smoke.  In addition, a small amount of rain can make the road very slippery and drivers may experience a loss of traction or control. 

· Watch out for ash pits – holes created by burned trees filled with hot ash.  You or your pets can be seriously injured if you fall into an ash pit.

· Check to see if your gas and electric utilities are working properly. If you smell gas, shut off the gas supply at the main valve, leave immediately, and call the gas company. For those with generated electricity, if the electricity is not working, check to see if the main breaker is “on.” If it is and there is no power, call an electrician. 

· Watch out for falling rocks, mudslides, and flooding.  Mudslides, flooding, and falling rocks are common after a fire. 

· Your house and yard may be covered in ash.  There may still be live embers present. Wear long pants, a long sleeved shirt or a jacket, and boots. Wearing a dust mask will be especially important. 

· Check for and extinguish any burning embers on the roof, in rain gutters, on the porch, or elsewhere on your property.

For more information about what to do after the fire, contact your local Cooperative Extension or Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands, or visit www.utahfireinfo.gov.****
#### Nicholas S. TROBOVIC, Petitioner, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.

No. 2006-3341.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 28, 2006.

Nicholas S. Trobovie, pro se.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Nicholas S. Trobovie moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We consider whether we should reconsider the court’s September 5, 2006 order dismissing Trobovic’s petition for review for failure to file pay the filing fee and file a Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) statement concerning discrimination.

Trobovie has now filed the Rule 15(c) statement.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Trobovie’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

(2) The September 5, 2006 dismissal order is vacated, the mandate is recalled, and the petition for review is reinstated.

*1024(3) General Services Administration should calculate the due date for its brief from the date of filing of this order.
Respectful Interaction – Trust, Honesty, And Self respect

1

Respect feedback

Be willing to share concerns 

  Be a student

  Rules don’t and can’t cover every situation

2

 Just

Reporting

Learning

Flexible

Safety Culture

Three Components of  A Safe And Productive Unit

Track small failures

Resist oversimplification 

Sensitive to operations

Maintain capabilities for resilience

Take advantage of shifting locations of expertise

HRO Principles:

3

Photo by Tom Iraci

1

1

Cultures And  Principles Of A Safe And Productive Unit

Tracking Small Failures.

	HROs are preoccupied with all failures, especially small ones. Small things that go wrong are often early warning signals of deepening trouble and give insight into the health of the whole system.

A Reluctance to Simplify.

	HROs restrain their temptation to simplify through diverse checks and balances, adversarial reviews, and the cultivation of multiple perspectives.

A Sensitivity to Operations.

	HROs make strong responses to weak signals (indications that something might be amiss). Everyone values organizing to maintain situational awareness.

A Commitment to Resilience.

	HROs pay close attention to their capability to improvise and act—without knowing in advance what will happen.

A Deference to Expertise.

	HROs shift decisions away from formal authority toward expertise and experience. Decision making migrates to experts at all levels of the hierarchy. 

Just Culture

An organization is defined by how it handles blame and  punishment

Recognizes that individuals must be held accountable for reckless behavior, but also recognizes that management should be held accountable for implementing a reliable operating system and managing human reliability

Reporting Culture

Are things happening that I did not plan/expect?

Have I let someone know?

Did I learn something that others should know about?

Learning Culture

Learning is continuous; are we students?

Do we challenged our assumptions and expectations?

Flexible Culture

Adapts to changing demands

Information flows more freely when hierarchies are               flattened and rank defers to technical expertise

Flexibility and decentralization go hand in hand

# image1.wmf

# image2.png
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
    <title>NIDDK Data Management & Sharing - NIDDK</title>
    
<meta name="VIcurrentDateTime" content="638490781946878780" />
<meta name="VirtualFolder" content="/" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/layouts/system/VisitorIdentification.js"></script>

</head>
<body>
    <div></div>
</body>
</html>
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________

No 10-3337

_________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

NELSON LUIS DIAZ,

 Appellant

________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 1-07-cr-00147-001)

District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III

_______

Argued March 22, 2011

Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case, filed May 5, 2011 be 

amended as follows:

Page 3, first full paragraph, line 10, “360 years to life” should be deleted and 

replaced by “360 months to life.”

By the Court

 /s/ Dolores K. Sloviter

 Circuit Judge

Dated: May 6, 2011

trg/cc: Michael A. Consiglio, Esq.

Ronald A. Krauss, Esq.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1995             SEP-30-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995             OCT-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1994
<CASH>                                           2,287                  46,741
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,000                  26,532
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,733                   2,110
<PP&E>                                       1,094,172                 956,202
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (46,603)                 (7,890)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,070,589               1,023,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,704                  73,259
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        35,900                  35,900
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,032,985                 914,536
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,070,589               1,023,695
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               347,303                 180,000
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               228,854                 285,846
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                118,449                (105,846)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                 (36,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   118,449                 (69,846)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03                     .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03                     .02
        

</TABLE>
June 21 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOE AND ABE ENTERPRI SES, LLC , Appellant
NO. 14

- 12

- 00413

- CV V. ENCORE BANK, N.A. , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Encore Bank, N.A., signed, January 11, 2012 , was heard on the trans cript of the record. The record shows that the judgment is not final. We therefore order the appeal DISMISSED

. We order appellant, Joe and Abe Enterprises, LLC, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**BLM Aviation Enhancement Application Form V2.0**

The following template applies to aviation enhancement requests for programs such as rappel, short-haul and cargo let-down, RADS.  Additionally the template should be used for changes in utilization of aviation programs already approved.

The intent of the template is to organize information required by aviation and line managers to make informed decisions.

Published standards have been established to prevent aviation mishaps and to provide a standardized approach to efficient and effective operations.   Aviation enhancements have inherent increases of exposure of personnel which require careful scrutiny to ensure the operational gain is worth the risk and that identified hazards are mitigated where possible.

**REVIEW AND APPROVALS**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<MULTIPLIER>                            1
       
<S>                                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                                           26
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   26
<PP&E>                                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         26
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    70,430
<BONDS>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87,660
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                        (158,064)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         26
<SALES>                                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         611
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (611)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (611)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (611)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .00
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Othal D. MASEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-11004.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Nov. 6, 2006.

Ronald C.H. Eddins, Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Raymond J. Rodgers, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

*447PER CURIAM: *

Othal Masey appeals the district court’s denial of a two level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to section 3El.l(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines. Masey is currently incarcerated on a guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. *See*18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2).

He argues that the district court adopted an automatic approach in denying him a two level reduction and that the district court failed to find that his pretrial release violations were willful. The court need not decide whether plain error applies to these precise issues because Maséis arguments fail even under a more lenient clear error standard.

This court reviews the district court’s interpretation of the guidelines de novo and its factual determinations for clear error. *United States v. Villegas,*404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir.2005); *United States v. Villanueva,*408 F.3d 193, 203 n. 9 (5th Cir.2005). “If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense,” his offense level should be decreased by two levels. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3El.l(a) (2004). Because “[t]he sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility,” the § 3E1.1 determination “is entitled to great deference on review.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 cmt. n. 5 (2004).

The sentencing transcript reflects that the district court thoroughly considered Masey’s arguments in support of the reduction at the sentencing hearing. Masey failed to rebut the information contained in the presentence report that Masey’s employer and friend was willing to provide him transportation to his Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in accordance with pretrial release conditions. *See United States v. Caldwell,*448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir.2006). To the extent that Masey argues that the district court failed to make a finding that his violations were willful, Masey cites neither case law nor statutory authority that a finding of willfulness must be made prior to denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying a two level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. *See Villegas,*404 F.3d at 359; *Villanueva,*408 F.3d at 203 n. 9.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-3563

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Christopher Funchess, also known as C-Murder

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________ 

Submitted: April 11, 2023

Filed: May 15, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

After repeatedly violating the conditions of supervised release, Christopher 

Funchess received a seven-month prison sentence. Although he questions the 

seriousness of the violations, we affirm. 
-2- 

We conclude that the district court1 did not abuse its discretion when it sent

Funchess back to prison. See United States v. Melton, 666 F.3d 513, 516 (8th Cir. 

2012) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion). For one thing, he repeatedly used 

marijuana, an illegal drug under federal law, even though he was required to “refrain 

from any unlawful use of a controlled substance.” (Emphasis added); see 21 U.S.C. 

§ 812(c). He is not entitled to a break just because the illegal drug happened to be 

marijuana. See United States v. Schostag, 895 F.3d 1025, 1027–28 (8th Cir. 2018) 

(explaining that the “use of marijuana—even for medical purposes—contravenes 

federal law”). For another, he tried to cover up his drug use by “diluting” his test

samples. A “pervasive unwillingness” to follow drug-testing conditions is serious, 

all the more so for someone like Funchess with a history of drug dealing. Melton, 

666 F.3d at 516; see United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160–61 (8th Cir. 1990) 

(per curiam) (affirming a revocation sentence after a defendant missed drug-testing 

appointments). 

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.

_____________________________

1

The Honorable Linda J. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern 

District of Iowa.
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D 20 2 3
- 1789 Lower Tribunal No. 2021
- CA
- 001170
- 0001
- XX

_____________________________ R OBERT A TKINS and J ULIA A TKINS , Appellant s , v. F LORIDA P ENINSULA I NSURANCE C OMPANY , Appellee
.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County
. Lauren L. Brodie , Judge. July 30, 2024 PER CURIAM
. AFFIRMED
. TRAVER , C
. J. , and STARGEL and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur. Earl I. Higgs, Jr., of Higgs Law, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant s . Scot E. Samis, of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, St. Petersburg, for Appellee
. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elisandro VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-40762.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Elisandro Vargas, Pollock, LA, pro se.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Elisandro Vargas, federal prisoner # 06615-018, appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The district court *483granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the issue whether *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*580 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2848, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), was retroactively applicable to initial § 2255 motions.

During the pendency of Vargas’s § 2255 appeal, we rendered *United States v. Brown,*305 F.3d 304, 305 (5th Cir.2002), which held that *Apprendi*did not apply retroactively on initial collateral review, thereby foreclosing the issue on which a COA was granted. Vargas argues, however, that because *Apprendi*was decided during the pendency of his direct appeal, its new procedural rule is retroactively applicable to his case. Vargas, however, did not raise an Apprendi-type issue on direct appeal. *Cf. Griffith v. Kentucky,*479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). Instead, he raised an *Apprendi*issue for the first time in his initial § 2255 motion and, as such, is not entitled to relief. *See Brown,*305 F.3d at 305.

In his supplemental brief, Vargas argues pursuant to *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), that he was illegally sentenced beyond the statutory maximum. Although the Supreme Court held *Blakely*applicable to the Sentencing Guidelines in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 232-33, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we have recently held that *Booker*— like *Apprendi*— is not retroactively applicable to initial § 2255 motions. *United States v. Gentry,*432 F.3d 600, 604 (5th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF GRANTED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Alexis Cruz, Appellant, v Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 18]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered January 17, 2012, which granted plaintiffs motion to vacate an order, same court and Justice, entered November 9, 2011, on default, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and thereupon granted defendant’s motion on the merits, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 30, 2012, which, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Plaintiff, a Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) police officer, brought this action against the MTA pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (45 USC §51*et seq.),*alleging that he was injured, as a result of the MTA’s negligence, while responding to a report of an assault in progress at the Fordham Station of the Metro-North Railroad. His vehicle, with emergency lights and siren engaged, was struck by another vehicle that failed to yield the right of way.

There is no reasonable basis for finding that there was any negligence on the MTA’s part that contributed to plaintiffs injuries *(see e.g. Murphy v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*548 F Supp 2d 29, 39-40 [SD NY 2008]). The MTA’s police department manual identifies an assault in progress as a “Code 3” emergency, and plaintiff concedes that “Code 3” was the proper designation. The fact that the New York Police Department, which was also summoned to the scene, maintained a precinct in closer proximity to the scene of the assault than the station from which plaintiff was dispatched is not evidence of negligence on the MTA’s part.

*409We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Feinman and Clark, JJ.