alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018005EN.01003502.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2017 — Vincenti v EUIPO

(Case T-586/16) (1)

1

((Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2015 promotion exercise - Lack of staff reports as a result of sick leave - General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations))

(2018/C 005/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Guillaume Vincenti (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Tóth and A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 24 July 2015 not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AST 8) in the 2015 promotion procedure by not including his name on the list of officials promoted in the 2015 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 July 2015 establishing the list of officials promoted in the 2015 promotion exercise in so far as Mr Guillaume Vincenti was not taken into consideration for the 2015 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 July 2015 establishing the list of officials promoted in the 2015 promotion exercise in so far as Mr Guillaume Vincenti was not taken into consideration for the 2015 promotion exercise;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016 (Case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-16/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).

1

---
Exhibit 99.1

                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 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 on Form 10-Q of DA Consulting Group, Inc. (the
"COMPANY")  for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I, Virginia L. Pierpont,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1)   the  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended; 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/__________________________________
                               Name:  Virginia  L.  Pierpont
                               Title: President & Chief Executive Officer
                               Date:  August  9,  2002


                                       16
<PAGE>
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Fromage Taxi, LLC :

:

v. : No. 2034 C.D. 2015

: Submitted: June 17, 2016

Philadelphia Parking Authority, :

Appellant :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: July 11, 2016

The Philadelphia Parking Authority (Authority) appeals from an order 

of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County reversing the Philadelphia 

Parking Authority Taxicab and Limousine Division’s (Hearing Officer’s) order 

granting the Authority’s motion to amend owner citation T-16361 against Fromage 

Taxi, LLC to include a violation of 52 Pa. Code §1017.24 because the Hearing 

Officer did not have jurisdiction and authority to amend a citation after the citation

was issued.

While this case involves a different citation and different owner, the 

underlying facts are the same and the issues are identical to those we resolved in 

Yellow 2000 of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Parking Authority (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 

2036 C.D. 2015, filed July 11, 2016), where we held that the Hearing Officer did 
2

have the authority to amend the Citation in those circumstances. For the same 

reasons set forth in that opinion, we reverse.

_______________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Fromage Taxi, LLC :

:

v. : No. 2034 C.D. 2015

:

Philadelphia Parking Authority, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2016, it is hereby ordered that the

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County’s order dated October 2, 2015, at 

Case No. 01174, is reversed, and Fromage Taxi, LLC’s motion to strike portions of 

the Philadelphia Parking Authority’s brief is denied.

_______________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge
Order filed, October 18, 2016

.

In The


## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 16

- 00823

- CV

____________

DONALD KILPATRICK , Appellant

V.

ERIC L. ESTES; ADRIA NA POTOCZNIAK, ET AL , Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court Har ris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015

- 31821D



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due August 30, 2016. See Tex. R.
App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the

record. The record has not been filed w ith the court. Because the reporter’s record
has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Gina Wilburn, the official court reporter, to file the record in this
appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

.

PER CURIAM
Consultation Process: Responses to Standard Questions 

Questions: 

1. The ICR (Information Collection Request) is intended to require that respondents 

provide certain data so that the Agency can utilize them. Based on the instructions, is it 

clear to respondents what they are required to do and how to submit such data? If not, 

what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions? 

2. Do respondents understand what they are required to submit or maintain in their 

records? Is the reporting form clear, logical, and easy to complete? 

3. The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the 

public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there 

is a strong reason for not doing so. If the Agency were able to ensure the security of CBI 

that might be transmitted over the Internet and the reporting form could be completed 

electronically, would you be interested in submitting it electronically? 

Current electronic reporting alternatives include the use of “web forms”/XML based 

submissions via the Agency’s internet site and magnetic media-based submissions (i.e., 

on diskette, CD-ROM, etc.) Are you interested in using, or are they currently utilizing, 

electronic reporting/record-keeping options? 

4. Where a reporting requirement includes a signature requirement, consider whether a 

secure electronic signature method (such as Private Key Infrastructure) should be 

required if submitting electronically; whether a less secure method (such as the use of 

PINs and passwords) would be more appropriate; or, whether a signed cover sheet may 

be sufficient for the Agency’s purposes when data is submitted on disk. 

5. If you prefer one method to another, does your choice balance burdens and costs 

against electronic data and signature security integrity? 

6. If an electronic reporting option is not offered because of CBI-related concerns, would 

you be more inclined to submit CBI on diskette than on paper? What benefits would you 

realize? (Burden reduction? Greater efficiency in compiling the information?). 

7. The labor rates included in the Agency’s estimated burden hours and costs are a U.S. 

average that includes costs for overhead and benefits. These estimates include only 

burden hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR (i.e., the 

Agency does not include estimated burden hours and costs for usual and customary 

business practices such as R&D, marketing, etc.). Are the estimated burden hours and 

labor rates accurate? 

8. Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed, such as 

capital/start-up/M&O expenditures? If so, please provide an explanation of how you 

arrived at your estimate of burden and cost if substantially different than EPA’s estimate.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE
P.O. BOX 603
BENSALEM, PA 19020 - 9921

To All Federal Agencies For Management Letter No. 12-01
Which Financial Services Are
Provided By The Philadelphia
Financial Center (PFC)

MAR 19 2012

The purpose of this memo is to notify you of upcoming changes that will affect your
agency support by the Financial Management Service (FMS). As you may be aware,
FMS has undertaken an initiative to consolidate various operations. Consolidation will
occur in the areas of payment and post-payment activities throughout calendar year 2012
and 2013. The first of these consolidation efforts will be to transition all Fedwire
payment activity and support to the Kansas City Financial Center (KFC) effective
Monday, March 26, 2012. Therefore, Fedwire payments will no longer be supported by
the Philadelphia Financial Center (PFC) after Friday, March 23, 2012. On the other
hand, all post-payment activity related to Fedwire payments such as returns and
accounting issues will all be handled by PFC.

This transition will be transparent to all federal agencies and no programming changes
will be required. Please note that as part of this transition, Fedwire payments will begin
to be processed through new channels that support the Office of Foreign Asset Control
(OFAC) screening process. For more information regarding OFAC authority or the
agency responsibility to adequately pre-screen payment activity, you may visit the OFAC
website at www.treas.gov/ofac. Should any Fedwire payment require additional
information due to OFAC screening, your agency will be contacted directly by the KFC
staff.

FMS appreciates your patience with this current consolidation and assures you that you
will continue to receive the same great quality of customer service you have come to
expect. The hours of operation for processing Fedwire payments will remain Monday
through Friday, 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST. If you have any questions leading up to,
during, and after the transition, and for assistance with processing Fedwire payments,
please contact the KFC’s Helpdesk Unit at (816) 414-2100. For post-payment issues
relating to Fedwire payments, please contact PFC at (215) 516-8043.

Sincerely, iB
Legh 4 cal Beets

Regional Director Regional Director
Philadelphia Financial Center Kansas City Financial Center
# C_2016145EN.01004001.xml

| 25.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/40

---

Action brought on 17 February 2016 — ZZ and Others v Parliament

(Case F-9/16)

(2016/C 145/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: M. Casado Garcia-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decisions refusing the four applicants the grant of education allowances in respect of the year 2014-2015 and the following years and an order that the defendant is to pay the applicants the education allowances in respect of 2015/2016, together with interest calculated as of the dates on which those sums became payable under Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the contested individual decisions dated 24 April 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested individual decisions dated 24 April 2015;

| — | so far as necessary, annul the decisions of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament dated 17 November and 19 November 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as necessary, annul the decisions of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament dated 17 November and 19 November 2015;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the applicants the education allowance in respect of 2015/2016 together with interest calculated as of the dates on which those sums became payable under Annex VII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the applicants the education allowance in respect of 2015/2016 together with interest calculated as of the dates on which those sums became payable under Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

---
# Title

DATA Act Schema IDD v1.1		Friday, June 30, 2017

# Change Log

# Agency Label to Terse Label

&P of &N	

# image1.jpeg
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1041 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1041

To include the State of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico outer Continental 
Shelf revenue sharing program, to extend the moratorium on oil and gas 
leasing in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 4, 2017

   Mr. Rubio introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To include the State of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico outer Continental 
Shelf revenue sharing program, to extend the moratorium on oil and gas 
leasing in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico, 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 ``Florida Shores Protection and 
Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF STATE OF FLORIDA IN GULF OF MEXICO OUTER 
              CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM.

    Section 102 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 
U.S.C. 1331 note; Public Law 109-432) is amended by striking paragraph 
(7) and inserting the following:
            ``(7) Gulf producing state.--The term `Gulf producing 
        State' means each of the States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 
        Mississippi, and Texas.''.

SEC. 3. MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF GULF OF 
              MEXICO.

    Section 104(a) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 
(43 U.S.C. 1331 note; Public Law 109-432) is amended in the matter 
preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``June 30, 2022'' and inserting 
``June 30, 2027''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2017129EN.01000401.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/4

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 8 de Madrid — Spain) — Francisco Rodrigo Sanz v Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

(Case C-443/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector - Restructuring the organisation of universities - National rules - Integration of college lecturers into the body of university lecturers - Condition - Attainment of a doctorate degree - Changing full-time posts into part-time posts - Applied only to teachers employed as interim civil servants - Principle of non-discrimination))

(2017/C 129/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 8 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Francisco Rodrigo Sanz

Applicant:

Defendant: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the context of measures restructuring the organisation of universities, authorises the competent authorities of the Member State concerned to reduce by half the working hours of college lecturers employed as interim civil servants on account of them not having a doctorate degree, whereas university lecturers employed as permanent civil servants who also do not have a doctorate degree are not subject to the same measure.

---

(1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.

1

---
# C_2018142EN.01000402.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2018 — European Commission v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd

(Case C-301/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Commercial policy - Dumping - Imports of solar glass originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(7)(b) and (c) - Market Economy Treatment (MET) - Concept of ‘significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system’, within the meaning of the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) - Tax incentives))

(2018/C 142/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (represented by: Y. Melin and V. Akritidis, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings:

Intervener in support of the appellant: GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH, (represented by: A. Bochon, avocat, and R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Intervener in support of the appellant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 March 2016, Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission (T 586/14, EU:T:2016:154); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 March 2016, Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission (T 586/14, EU:T:2016:154);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DON WHITESIDE and

LINDA L. WHITESIDE

:

:

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4245

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04245-WY Document 7 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
# C_2017382EN.01001302.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem — Netherlands) — K. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-18/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 9 - Right to remain in a Member State during the examination of the application - Directive 2013/33/EU - First subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) - Detention - Verification of identity or nationality - Determination of the elements on which the application for international protection is based - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 6 and 52 - Restriction - Proportionality))

(2017/C 382/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag zittingsplaats Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K.

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3)(a) and (b) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of that provision in the light of Articles 6 and 52(1) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.

1

---
### Conference Call with Tribal Envi ronmental Professionals August 30, 2007 Meeting Note to the Docket

Discussion Topics

On August 30, 2007, representatives from th e US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) participated in a mee ting with a workgroup of interested tribal environmental professionals regarding the implementation of the rule titled: “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country.” The attendees discussed the following:

 General permits

 Tips for consultation

 Primer on how to request delegation

 Ideas for draft implementation plan