alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Good idea nets big savings 

/ Published Feb. 5, 2021
CAMP ARIFJAN, Kuwait, 
While Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services employees usually market reusable materials to warfighters, the Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, staff recently became their own customers when a good idea helped solve a messy problem.

Equipment Specialist Ted Adams was walking the grounds one day when he noticed some geo-textile mesh normally used in road construction and soil stabilization that was slated for shredding before disposal. Suddenly, Adams had an idea for a better way to deal with the material.

“We have an overhead shade structure above a concrete pad where we receive items coming into our lot,” Adams said. “Unfortunately, the open beams and supports of the structure became a favorite place for pigeons to roost, so our customers and workers were dealing with a lot of bird waste throughout the day.”                 Jhunar Medenilla, right, helps Ted Adams, as the pair continues to hang netting to keep out birds who were nesting above a receiving area at DLA Disposition Services at Camp Arifjan.                            Hanging more net                            Jhunar Medenilla, right, helps Ted Adams, as the pair continues to hang netting to keep out birds who were nesting above a receiving area at DLA Disposition Services at Camp Arifjan.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Ben SingletonVIRIN: 210120-D-D0441-004

Adams remembered how the problem had been addressed at a similar structure on base where a fine netting was hung under the structure to block the birds from accessing it. After checking with the base pest control staff and getting permission for a self-help project, he went to work finding materials to link the netting into a single piece so it could be suspended in the receiving area.

“I borrowed a lift basket and safety harnesses from our maintenance contractor and scheduled a time to do the project,” Adams said. “We cleaned one afternoon and spent five days hanging the netting.”

Before Adams had his idea he said an estimate for a $240,000 project to remedy the bird problem had been prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of a 2019 Area Development Plan. Instead, Adams and his colleagues found several rolls of nylon webbing among scrap materials waiting for disposal, which was used to suspend the netting, and thousands of zip ties that were turned in as excess property. 

“We also found some self-tapping screws, which we used to secure the ends,” Adams said. “The only thing we bought were some bolts to hold our steel plating along the edges. The steel was also scrap.”
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Casilla, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 493]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J. at plea; Daniel P. FitzGerald, J. at sentencing), rendered December 18, 2014, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (see *Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber and Oing, JJ.
# C_2017121EN.01002001.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — United Parcel Service v Commission

(Case T-194/13) (1)

1

((Competition - Mergers - Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - International express small package delivery services in the EEA - Acquisition of TNT Express by UPS - Decision declaring the merger incompatible with the internal market - Likely effects on prices - Econometric analysis - Rights of defence))

(2017/C 121/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: United Parcel Service, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented initially by A. Ryan, B. Graham, Solicitors, W. Knibbeler and P. Stamou, lawyers, and then by A. Ryan, W. Knibbeler, P. Stamou, A. Pliego Selie, F. Hoseinian and P. van den Berg, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by T. Christoforou, N. Khan, A. Biolan, N. von Lingen and H. Leupold, and subsequently by T. Christoforou, N. Khan, A. Biolan and H. Leupold, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: FedEx Corp. (Memphis, Tennessee, United States) (represented initially by F. Carlin, Barrister, G. Bushell, Solicitor, and Q. Azau, lawyer, then by F. Carlin, G. Bushell and N. Niejahr, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 431 of 30 January 2013 declaring a concentration incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6570 — UPS/TNT Express).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2013) 431 of 30 January 2013 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6570 — UPS/TNT Express); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2013) 431 of 30 January 2013 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6570 — UPS/TNT Express);

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by United Parcel Service, Inc.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by United Parcel Service, Inc.;

| 3. | Orders FedEx Corp. to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders FedEx Corp. to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

1

---
2017-0395.

#### State v. Cooper.

Cuyahoga App. No. 104797, 2017-Ohio-541.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         164,122                  85,653
<SECURITIES>                                 1,664,209               2,276,983
<RECEIVABLES>                                  119,784                 120,619
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,350)                (15,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    698,013               1,137,445
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                          24,494                  40,004
<DEPRECIATION>                                (18,780)                (27,769)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,641,492               3,617,935
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,879                 137,476
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                     50,511                  50,511
<COMMON>                                       128,307                 128,307
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,462,674               3,439,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,641,492               3,617,935
<SALES>                                        199,001                 167,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               199,001                 167,074
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  146,102                 159,211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (87,429)                 341,809
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,530)                 349,672
<INCOME-TAX>                                    31,810                (70,435)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,720)                 279,237
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,720)                 279,237
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)                     .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)                     .19


</TABLE>
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-1085V Filed: December 14, 2015 Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CAROL ENNIS, *
* Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccination; Shoulder * Injury Related to Vaccine Administration SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA ”); Special Processing Unit AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)
* Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Maximillian J. Muller, Mulle r Brazil, LLP, for petitioner. Robert Paul Coleman, III, U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On September 28, 2015, petitioner fil ed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensat ion Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 [the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”] . Petitioner alleges that her September 9, 2014 influenza
vaccination caused her to suffer from shoulder injuries. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 11, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compen sation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent “has c oncluded that a preponderance of the evidence established that petiti oner’s injury is consistent with shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (‘SIRVA’),” and “is compensable as a ‘caused-in-fact’ injury
under the Vaccine Act.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agr ees that petitioner’s claim was timely filed, and involved a vaccination receiv ed in the United States and covered by the

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reaso ned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-3 47, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 Vaccine Injury Table. Id. at 5. Respondent also agrees t hat petitioner has suffered
from her condition from more than six months, and that the petition indicates that petitioner has received no prio r compensation, award, or settlement for her injury. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20320

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LARRY D. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CV-1410

- - - - - - - - - - October 2, 1998 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Larry Brown, federal prisoner # 59615-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to modify the terms of his fine. Brown filed his notice of appeal more than 10 days after the district court’s order denying his motion. His appeal from the denial of that motion is DISMISSED as untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). Brown seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel basedNo. 98-20320 -2- upon his attorney’s failure to argue on appeal that the sentencing court 1) erred by holding Brown accountable for 20 grams of cocaine because the evidence did not indicate that he had the ability to purchase that large a quantity and 2) should have granted a downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines range based upon sentencing entrapment. In order to obtain a COA, Brown must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Brown has not made such a showing with any of the issues he raises. Accordingly, COA is DENIED.
# C_2014061EN.01000501.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 6 December 2013 — Office national de l’emploi v Marie-Rose Melchior

(Case C-647/13)

2014/C 61/07

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Office national de l’emploi

Applicant:

Defendant: Marie-Rose Melchior

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the principle of sincere cooperation and Article 4(3) TEU, on the one hand, and Article 34(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on the other, preclude a Member State, in relation to the issue of qualifying for unemployment benefit, from refusing:

| — | to take account of working periods as a contract employee in the service of a European Union institution, established in that Member State, in particular where, both before and after the period of employment as a contract employee, work was performed as an employed person in accordance with the legislation of that Member State; |
| --- | --- |

—

to take account of working periods as a contract employee in the service of a European Union institution, established in that Member State, in particular where, both before and after the period of employment as a contract employee, work was performed as an employed person in accordance with the legislation of that Member State;

| — | to treat days of unemployment compensated under the ‘Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities’ in the same way as working days, whereas the days of unemployment compensated in accordance with the legislation of that Member State are treated in that way? |
| --- | --- |

—

to treat days of unemployment compensated under the ‘Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities’ in the same way as working days, whereas the days of unemployment compensated in accordance with the legislation of that Member State are treated in that way?

---
No. 10-6170.

#### Tyrone Leslie Farris, Petitioner v. Oklahoma.

562 U.S. 998, 131 S. Ct. 522,

178 L. Ed. 2d 366,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8414.

November 1, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
#### In the Matter of Country-Wide Insurance Company, Appellant, v Jesie Montero, Respondent. Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, Additional Respondent, et al., Additional Respondents.

[61 NYS3d 109]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of a claim for supplementary uninsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Raf-faele, J.), entered August 6, 2015, which, after a framed issue hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Motion by the additional respondent Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York to dismiss the appeal as academic. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated March 9, 2017, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

During the pendency of this appeal by Country-Wide Insurance Company (hereinafter Country-Wide) from the denial of its petition pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of a supplementary uninsured motorist claim, the matter proceeded to arbitration and Country-Wide executed a stipulation of settlement with the claimant settling the matter, which resulted in the issuance of a consent award by the arbitrator. *817Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed as academic, since the rights of the parties cannot be affected by the determination of this appeal, and no exception to the mootness doctrine is warranted herein *(see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]; *see e.g. Matter of Aidin V. [Giorgio V.],*149 AD3d 757 [2017]; *Matter of Pyne v Incorporated Vil. of Southampton Bd. of Historic Preserv. & Architectural*Review, 148 AD3d 1155 [2017]).

Mastro, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
#### People v Rohs

2d Dept: 140 AD3d 800 (Westchester)

denied 3/21/17 (Garcia, J.)
No. 10-6447.

#### Ramon Ernesto Cruz-Paguada, aka Pedro Pablo Agurcia, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 988, 131 S. Ct. 431,

178 L. Ed. 2d 335,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8170.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 852.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31091-31092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13115]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 9155]

Advisory Committee on the Secretary of State's Strategic Dialogue 
With Civil Society; Notice of the Intent To Re-Establish an Advisory 
Committee

    This is notice of the intent to re-establish the Advisory Committee 
on the Secretary of State's Strategic Dialogue with Civil Society. The 
Committee will serve the United States Government in a solely advisory 
capacity concerning engagement with and protection of civil society 
worldwide. Functions will include, but will not be limited to, 
providing information and advice on the effective integration of civil 
society into overall foreign policy, and providing information and 
advice on the Department of State's role in advancing, promoting, and 
protecting freedom of association and expression. The Department of 
State affirms that re-establishment of the Committee is necessary and 
in the public interest.
    The Committee will consult with other interested parties, agencies, 
and interagency committees and groups of the United States Government, 
foreign governments, and with national and international private sector 
organizations and individuals, as the Department of State and the 
Committee decides are necessary or desirable.
    The Committee will be comprised of up to twenty-four distinguished 
citizens from the private sector, philanthropy,

[[Page 31092]]

nongovernmental organizations, think tanks and academia, providing the 
Secretary with a fresh perspective and insight apart from and 
independent of the State Department organization. It will not perform 
the function of any existing Department staff or committee.
    For further information, please contact the Committee's Designated 
Federal Officer, Jim Thompson, at civilengagement@state.gov.

    Dated: May 23, 2015.
James F. Thompson,
Director of Innovation, Secretary's Office of Global Partnerships, U.S. 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-13115 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16529]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Engineering Education and Centers; 
Notice of Meetings

    In accord with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meetings:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Engineering Education and 
Centers (173).
    Date and Time: July 9-10 (Room 370); July 10, 1998, 8:00 a.m.-
5:00 p.m. (Room 580).
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact: Dr. William Butcher, Senior Engineering Advisor, & Mr. 
Alex Schwarzkoph, Program Director, Division of Engineering and 
Education and Centers, Engineering Directorate, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, 703/306-
1383.
    Purpose of Meetings: To provide advice and recommendation 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals submitted to the 
Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Program as part of 
the selection process of awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: June 16, 1998
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-16529 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
```