alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Fire Warden Roles and Responsibilities Training Feb. 14, 2018

By DLA Aviation Public Affairs

                Richmond, Va.  –              
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Richmond employees Janelle Shifflette, left, and Sabrina Bryant, middle; and Laray Deveaux, right, from Defense Contract Management Agency, all assigned as fire wardens for their work areas on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, simulate calling in a fire and using fire extinguishers while receiving instruction from Fire Inspector Daryhl Page, Fire and Emergency Services, DLA Installation Operations at Richmond.  The simulation took place during Fire Warden Roles and Responsibilities Training Feb. 14, 2018 in the McKeever Auditorium.  Training is provided quarterly by Fire and Emergency Services, and is part of their ongoing mission to train and educate the workforce.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
Before the First Division,

February 6, 1941

No. 45347.

#### Protest 13228-K/88799 of International Import Co. (Chicago).

*535Opinion by

Walkeb, J.

Prom the testimony it appeared that this onyx is not in block-norm as that term is commonly understood. It was found to be pieces broken off blocks in the process of shaping. *Vermont Marble Co.*v. *United States*(G. A. 4747, T. D. 22434), *Fisher*v. *United States*(G. A. 5425, T. D. 24683), and *Charles Mill Supply Co.*v. *United States*(G. A. 5312, T. D. 24325) distinguished. Since onyx is a mineral it was held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 214 as claimed.
No. 47092.

#### Protests 971722-G, etc., of Great Eastern Packing *&*Paper Stock Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It appeared that certain of the merchandise consisted .of white or colored sisal waste. The official samples were received in evidence at the trial. The plaintiff introduced the testimony of one witness but this was found to fall far short of proving that the merchandise of the kind and class here imported is chiefly used for paper making and that it is therefore “paper stock” provided for in paragraph 1750. The court stated “The designation ‘paper stock’ is a designation by use, and the chief use of the commodity will govern its classification. Classification, according to chief use, depends upon the use which users as a whole make of the particular type of commodity involved and notthe indvidual use of the particular shipment.” *United States*v. *Swift & Co.*(14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 222, T. D. 41706), *United States*v. *Redden*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 224, T. D. 41177), *Durbrow*v. *United States*(12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 225, T. D. 40230), *Brown*v. *United States*(7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 309, T. D. 36871), and *Magone*v. *Heller*(150 U. S. 70). As the testimony failed to show that the chief use of the class of merchandise here involved throughout the entire United States is for paper making the protests were overruled.
No. 96-7841.

#### Thomas *v.*West, Secretary of the Army.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 20 13 - 0642 Directorate ID : 20 11 - SW - 035 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model MBB - BK 117 C - 2 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 108 Helicop ters in the US Registry . Reason : The proposed actions of this AD are intended to prevent the in - flight loss of the door, which could damage the helicopter and injure persons on the ground. Costs :  Visually

inspecting the door’s lock release assembly and th e middle and upper levers would require 4 work- hours for a labor cost of $340 per helicopter. No parts would be needed, so that the total cost for the U.S. fleet would be $36,720.  Visually

inspecting all hardware, guides and door attachment points for misaligned or bent fittings would require 4 work- hours for a labor cost of $340 per helicopter. Parts may be needed but on an individual basis, so that the total cost for the U.S. fleet would be at least $36,720. Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be conside red a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number o f small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Matt Fuller
No. 5906.

#### HOWARD A. SEGRAVE CO., INC., vs. GLOBE PACKING BOX COMPANY.

Syllabus.

The seller must deliver the thing sold ■ ‘ in the same state in which it was at the time of the sale, that "is to say, without any change occasioned by the act or fault of the seller.” , ' *B. C. G.,*2489.

Appeal from the Civil District Court, Parish of •Orleans, Division “D,” No. 99,988. lion. Porter Parker, Judge.

Jewell- A. Sperling, for plaintiff and appellant.

Charles Eosen, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

*37Opinion and decree, November 24, 1913.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing its suit for the recovery of the price of certain gum logs sold to defendant.

. The logs when sold were upon the wharves on the river front and were to be delivered by plaintiff to defendant •at its plant, in this city without unreasonable delay. The defense is that the ordinary delay for' delivery would have been about forty-eight hours; that more than three months elapsed before delivery was actually made and that during this delay,.due to the fault of plaintiff, the timber deteriorated to such 'an extent as to render it unfit for use.

We are of the opinion that the defense is fully established; for the testimony shows that the logs, when sold, were in condition to be used for defendant’s purposes; that they deteriorated and were rendered worthless by reason of being allowed to remain exposed upon the wharves for more than three months, and that this wholly unreasonable delay in delivery was due to the fault of plaintiff and its agents.

Under these facts plaintiff cannot recover. It has failed to deliver the things sold “in the same state in which it was at the time of the sale, that is to say, without :any change occasioned by the act or fault of the seller.” E. C. U., 2489.

There is no error in the judgment and it is accordingly affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2014071EN.01002101.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/21

---

Order of the General Court of 13 January 2014 — Investigación y Desarollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission

(Case T-134/12) (1)

(Action for annulment and damages - Contracts concerning financial assistance from the European Union for research and development projects - Plea of inadmissibility - Failure to reclassify forms of order sought - In admissible)

(2014/C 71/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Investigación y Desarollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT S.A. (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: M. Jiménez Perona, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B. Conte, Agents, and J. Rivas Andrés and X. García García, lawyers)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the decision in the Commission’s letter of 13 January 2012 concerning the reimbursement of the sums mentioned in the debit notes corresponding to the financial audit to which the applicant was subject and, second, a claim for non-contractual liability seeking an order for the Commission to pay damages and interest of EUR 732 768.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Investigación y Desarollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT S.A. is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Investigación y Desarollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT S.A. is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.

---
#### Heinz *v.*Ruffsdale Distilling Company, Appellant.

*310Argued April 24, 1936.

Before Schaffer, Maxey, Drew, Linn, Stern and Barnes, JJ.

*B. Robert Averbach,*for appellant.

*William II. Eckert,*with him *Smith, Buchanan, Scott & Ingersoll,*for appellee.

June 26, 1936:

Per Curiam,

This is a proceeding in equity brought by the holder of a warehouse certificate issued April 25, 1918, by the Dillinger Distilling Company, of which the defendant is the successor, to compel the delivery of five barrels of Dillinger Pure Rye Whiskey. The certificate sets forth that the issuer of it has on storage in its warehouse five numbered barrels of whiskey which will be delivered on return of the certificate, payment of all taxes and charges due thereon, and storage at the rate of six cents the barrel per month. Defendant could not deliver the whiskey mentioned in the certificate, because without the consent of the owner it had removed the whiskey from the barrels and bottled it. The court in its decree required defendant to deliver bottled Avhiskey of like *311kind upon payment by plaintiff of storage charges due defendant amounting to $321.91, taxes due, storage charges of another warehouse and delivery of the certificate. From this decree defendant appeals.

Defendant claimed charges against the whiskey amounting to $2,365.52, although the certificate requires no payment for any of the items claimed except the storage charge of six cents per barrel for each month. The learned and experienced chancellor who heard the case disallowed all of the charges except those for storage and taxes. Our careful study of the record convinces us that the disposition of the chancellor was proper and just.

Two questions are raised before us which were not submitted to the court below, one that the court should not have entered a decree for the specific whiskey which was awarded but for the value of the whiskey, and the other that the Act of July 18, 1935, P. L. 1246, Sec. 601 (b), 47 P. S., Secs. 744-602, reenacting and amending the Act of November 29, 1933, (Sp. S.), P. L. 15, Art. VI, Sec. 602 (b), stands in the way of carrying out the decree. Neither of these questions was raised in the court below and, therefore, will not be considered on appeal: He*nes v. McGovern,*317 Pa. 302, 176 Atl. 503; *Webster’s Est.,*314 Pa. 233, 171 Atl. 476. So far as the cited act is concerned, it has no application to liquor “lawfully acquired prior to January 1, 1934.” As to the decree for the delivery of the specific whiskey, the record shows that the defendant itself offered to have similar whiskey substituted for that which it had converted if the chancellor found in plaintiff’s favor.

A further defense was interposed that suit had been brought on the certificate by a third party. It is sufficient to say about this that in a subsequent decree, on a motion for a rehearing, the chancellor sets forth that this suit was not authorized by the holder of the certificate and was nonsuited when tried.

Decree affirmed at appellant’s cost.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1856 

To prohibit Federal funding for lawsuits seeking to invalidate specified State 

laws that support the enforcement of Federal immigration laws. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 10, 2011 

Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. SESSIONS, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal funding for lawsuits seeking to invalidate 

specified State laws that support the enforcement of 

Federal immigration laws. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FEDERAL FUNDING FOR LAWSUITS SEEKING 

4 TO INVALIDATE STATE IMMIGRATION LAWS. 

5 Federal funds may not be used by any agency or in6 strumentality of the Federal Government to participate in 

7 any lawsuit that seeks to overturn, enjoin, or in any other 

8 way invalidate— 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1856 IS

1 (1) Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection 

2 Act of 2007 (HB 1804), which became effective on 

3 November 1, 2007; 

4 (2) Missouri House Bill 390, First Regular Ses5 sion 2009, 9th General Assembly, which became ef6 fective on August 28, 2009; 

7 (3) the Support Our Law Enforcement and 

8 Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB 1070), which was 

9 signed into law in Arizona on April 23, 2010; 

10 (4) The Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act 

11 (HB 497), which was signed into law in Utah on 

12 March 15, 2011; 

13 (5) Indiana Senate Enrolled Act No. 590, First 

14 Regular Session, 117th General Assembly (2011), 

15 which was signed into law on May 10, 2011; 

16 (6) the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer 

17 and Citizen Protection Act (HB 56), which was 

18 passed by the Alabama State legislature on June 9, 

19 2011; 

20 (7) South Carolina Act No. 69 (SB 20), which 

21 was signed into law on June 27, 2011; 

22 (8) the Illegal Immigration Reform and En23 forcement Act of 2011 (HB 87), which became ef24 fective in the State of Georgia on July 1, 2011; or 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1856 IS

1 (9) an Act to amend the Indiana Code con2 cerning education (HB 1402), which became effec3 tive in the State of Indiana on July 1, 2011. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 18.1

NATCO Group Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of NATCO Group Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and
cash flows for the two year period ended December 31, 2000 and 1999 and the nine
month period ended December 31, 1998, and have reported thereon under date of
February 16, 2001. The aforementioned consolidated financial statements and our
audit report thereon included in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2000. As stated in Note 15 to those financial
statements, the Company changed its method of accounting for the recognition of
unrealized gains and losses for its postretirement benefits from immediate
recognition of unrealized gains and losses to deferring unrealized gains and
losses, and states that the newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in
the circumstances because the deferral of unrealized gains and losses is more
common in practice and results in less volatility in net periodic post
retirement benefit costs. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and
discussed with Company officials the circumstances and business judgment and
planning upon which the decision to make this change in the method of accounting
was based.

With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have
not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method
of accounting over another acceptable method. However, for purposes of NATCO
Group Inc.'s compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, we are furnishing this letter.

Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management's business
judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is
preferable in the Company's circumstances.

                                                            (signed) KPMG LLP



Houston, Texas
February 15, 2001
# C_2014315EN.01002101.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania)) — SC BCR Leasing IFN SA v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia generală de administrare a marilor contribuabili, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia generală de soluţionare a contestaţiilor

(Case C-438/13) (1)

1

((VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 16 and 18 - Financial leasing - Goods under a financial leasing contract - Non-recovery of those goods by the leasing company after the termination of the contract - Missing goods))

2014/C 315/31

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC BCR Leasing IFN SA

Applicant:

Defendants: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia generală de administrare a marilor contribuabili, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia generală de soluţionare a contestaţiilor

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 16 and 18 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the impossibility, for a leasing company, of recovering from the lessee the goods let under a financial leasing contract following its termination as a result of the lessee’s breach, despite the steps undertaken by that company to recover those goods and despite the lack of any consideration following such termination, may not be treated as a supply of goods for consideration for the purposes of those articles.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

1

---
# C_2014175EN.01001601.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/16

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi — Poland) — Marcin Jagiełło v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

(Case C-33/13) (1)

1

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive - Right of deduction - Refusal - Invoice issued by a company acting as a front))

2014/C 175/18

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marcin Jagiełło

Applicant:

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi — Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (2), read in conjunction with Article 5(1), and of Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Right to deduct input VAT — Refusal to allow a recipient of supplies to deduct VAT in the case where the vendor uses the corporate name of another person — Intentional non-disclosure of the vendor’s own activity — Invoice issued by a person other than the vendor — No need to establish that the purchaser was aware of the fact that the transaction in question was linked to criminal activity or to some other irregularity committed by the vendor or by the body cooperating with it

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person may not be refused the right to deduct VAT due or paid in respect of goods supplied to him on the ground that, in view of fraud or irregularities committed by the issuer of the invoice for that supply, the supply is considered not to have actually been made by the issuer, unless it is established, on the basis of objective evidence and without requiring of the taxable person checks which are not his responsibility, that that taxable person knew, or should have known, that that supply was connected with VAT fraud — a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 18.05.2013

1

---