alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of John Cooper, Respondent, v City of New York, Respondent, and New York City Department of Education et al., Appellants.

[64 NYS3d 550]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered April 18, 2016, inter alia, annulling respondent Department of Education’s determination, dated November 24, 2014, which terminated petitioner’s probationary service and denied him a certificate of completion of probation, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed.

Petitioner failed to establish that his probationary service as a special services manager was terminated in bad faith or for an impermissible purpose *(see Matter of Brown v City of New York,*280 AD2d 368 [1st Dept 2001]). To the contrary, the record demonstrates that respondent had a good faith reason for its determination, i.e., petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance. The record shows there were issues with petitioner’s leadership, communication and project management skills. Moreover, these issues persisted despite his supervisor’s repeated advice that he needed to improve and her efforts to assist him.

To the extent petitioner argues that the annulment of his termination should be affirmed because of procedural deficiencies in the internal review process, this argument is unpre-served and in any event unavailing. Any deviations from internal procedures did not deprive petitioner of a substantial right or undermine the fairness and integrity of the review process *(see Matter of Cho-Brellis v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.,*149 AD3d 411 [1st Dept 2017]).

Concur—Tom, J.R, Friedman, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 10-6591.

#### Barry Dwayne Minnfee, Petitioner v. Texas.

562 U.S. 1057, 131 S. Ct. 652,

178 L. Ed. 2d 472,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9151.

November 29, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris denied, and petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).
81

Table 43. Tuberculosis Cases and Percentages, by Residence in Long-Term Care Facilities,1 

Ages >15 Years: Reporting Areas, 2016

Cases with information on Cases reported as residents of

Total residence in long-term care facilities long-term care facilities2

Reporting area cases No. (%) No. (%)

United States 8,878 8,845 (99.6) 168 (1.9)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

108 108 (100.0) 1 (0.9)

50 50 (100.0) 0 (0)

185 185 (100.0) 1 (0.5)

86 86 (100.0) 2 (2.3)

2,011 2,006 (99.8) 47 (2.3)

61 61 (100.0) 0 (0)

51 51 (100.0) 1 (2.0)

15 15 (100.0) 0 (0)

25 25 (100.0) 0 (0)

616 616 (100.0) 5 (0.8)

283 283 (100.0) 1 (0.4)

115 113 (98.3) 3 (2.7)

14 14 (100.0) 1 (7.1)

326 326 (100.0) 11 (3.4)

102 102 (100.0) 2 (2.0)

48 44 (91.7) 0 (0)

39 39 (100.0) 0 (0)

90 90 (100.0) 7 (7.8)

122 120 (98.4) 1 (0.8)

23 23 (100.0) 0 (0)

214 208 (97.2) 2 (1.0)

182 181 (99.5) 3 (1.7)

125 125 (100.0) 2 (1.6)

149 149 (100.0) 2 (1.3)

57 57 (100.0) 1 (1.8)

99 97 (98.0) 4 (4.1)

4 4 (100.0) 0 (0)

25 24 (96.0) 0 (0)

53 53 (100.0) 1 (1.9)

14 14 (100.0) 0 (0)

282 282 (100.0) 11 (3.9)

New Mexico 37 37 (100.0) 2 (5.4)

New York State3

New York City

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

193 193 (100.0) 6 (3.1)

554 548 (98.9) 9 (1.6)

206 206 (100.0) 4 (1.9)

21 21 (100.0) 0 (0)

135 135 (100.0) 3 (2.2)

72 72 (100.0) 4 (5.6)

65 65 (100.0) 1 (1.5)

164 164 (100.0) 8 (4.9)

11 11 (100.0) 0 (0)

87 87 (100.0) 3 (3.4)

12 12 (100.0) 0 (0)

98 98 (100.0) 2 (2.0)

1,181 1,181 (100.0) 11 (0.9)

18 18 (100.0) 0 (0)

5 5 (100.0) 0 (0)

196 196 (100.0) 1 (0.5)

199 196 (98.5) 4 (2.0)

14 14 (100.0) 1 (7.1)

35 34 (97.1) 0 (0)

1 1 (100.0) 0 (0)

American Samoa4

Fed. States of Micronesia4

Guam4

Marshall Islands4

N. Mariana Islands4

Puerto Rico4

Republic of Palau4

U.S. Virgin Islands4

1 1 (100.0) 0 (0)

86 85 (98.8) 0 (0)

63 57 (90.5) 1 (1.8)

131 130 (99.2) 0 (0)

18 16 (88.9) 0 (0)

68 68 (100.0) 15 (22.1)

20 20 (100.0) 0 (0)

0 0 ... 0 ...

1

Resident of long-term care facility at time of TB diagnosis. Percentage based on 52 reporting areas (50 states, New York City, and the 

District of Columbia).

2

Percent of those with known status.

3

Excludes New York City.

4

Not included in U.S. totals. 

Note: Ellipses (...) indicate that the percentage cannot be calculated, and the denominator is 0.
No. 10-7030.

#### Delmo Figuro Torrefranca, Petitioner v. Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 1144, 131 S. Ct. 915,

178 L. Ed. 2d 764,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 396,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2013171EN.01003602.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/36

---

Appeal brought on 14 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 February 2013 in Case F-67/12, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-226/13 P)

2013/C 171/69

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Grant all the appellant’s claims in the proceedings at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant all the appellant’s claims in the proceedings at first instance;

| — | Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

These proceedings are brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 February 2013 rejecting as manifestly lacking any foundation in law an action seeking: (i) annulment of the decision by which the European Commission rejected the appellant’s claim for compensation for the damage arising as a result of the fact that a letter concerning the manner in which the judgment of the Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission was to be enforced was sent to the lawyer who represented him in the appeal proceedings against that judgment; and (ii) an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage purportedly caused as a result of that act.

06 Marcuccio

Commissio

In support of his appeal, the appellant alleges an absolute failure to state reasons for the rejection of his claim for compensation, by reason, inter alia, of failure to make inquiries, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, arbitrary reasoning and incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of:

| | the rules of law relating to the incurring of Aquilian liability on the part of the institutions of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

the rules of law relating to the incurring of Aquilian liability on the part of the institutions of the European Union;

| | the concept of the duty to state reasons incumbent on all European Union institutions and the European Union judicature; |
| --- | --- |

the concept of the duty to state reasons incumbent on all European Union institutions and the European Union judicature;

| | the concept of unlawful conduct on the part of a European Union institution. |
| --- | --- |

the concept of unlawful conduct on the part of a European Union institution.

| | The appellant also contends that the ruling of the court at first instance on costs was unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

The appellant also contends that the ruling of the court at first instance on costs was unlawful.

---
# C_2016402EN.01002502.xml

| 31.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — La Ferla v Commission and ECHA

(Case T-392/13) (1)

1

((REACH - Fee for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises - Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Request for information - Power of the ECHA - Proportionality))

(2016/C 402/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Leone La Ferla SpA (Melilli, Italy) (represented by: G. Passalacqua, J. Occhipinti and G. Calcerano, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Paolo and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents) and European Chemicals Agency (represented by: initially M. Heikkilä, A. Iber, E. Bigi, E. Maurage and J.-P. Trnka, then M. Heikkilä, E. Bigi, E. Maurage and J.-P. Trnka, acting as Agents, and by C. Garcia Molyneux, lawyer)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

In the first place, application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of several Commission or ECHA measures, in the second place, application asking for the ECHA to be ordered to repay amounts which had been unduly received, and, in the third place, application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking to obtain compensation for the harm which the applicant has allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the action in so far as it is brought against the European Commission, is dismissed as being inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the action in so far as it is brought against the European Commission, is dismissed as being inadmissible;

| 2. | Declares that the action, in so far as it is brought against the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), is dismissed as being inadmissible in part and unfounded in part; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that the action, in so far as it is brought against the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), is dismissed as being inadmissible in part and unfounded in part;

| 3. | Orders Leone La Ferla SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Leone La Ferla SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 291, 5.10.2013.

1

---
Sigonella, Italy

Email this event to me @

Invalid Email Address!Invalid Email Address!

**Start Date/Time:**

Wednesday, May 1, 2024 11:30 AM

**Description:**

During the month of May Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Sigonella, Italy, will transition to the Warehouse Management System. Customers with questions or concerns are encouraged to use the contact information foundon the Sigonella, Italy, location page.

Enrolled Users:

                - Return
                - 
                - Export
No. 10-5135.

#### Robert Wooten, Petitioner v. California, et al.

562 U.S. 1065, 131 S. Ct. 640,

178 L. Ed. 2d 485,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9413.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 783.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
                
                Defense Logistics Agency
                        The Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency
                    DLA
            Search
                        Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                            Search
                    Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                        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  Home
  Land and Maritime
  About
  DLA Land and Maritime Image Galleries
 DLA Land and Maritime images
 Supply Chain Alliance and Exhibition
 DLA Land and Maritime News
 Hall of Fame Ceremonies
 DSCC Activities
 DLA Land and Maritime Hall of Fame ceremonies
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.35 MB)
 
 DLA Land and Maritime news L&M
 Photo Gallery
 2024 DLA Supply Chain Alliance Conference and Exhibition Image Gallery
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.35 MB)
 
 DLA Land and Maritime news L&M
 Photo Gallery
 DLA Land and Maritime news
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.35 MB)
 
 DLA Land and Maritime news L&M
 Photo Gallery
 DSCC activities
 Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesOther
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.35 MB)
 
 DLA Land and Maritime news L&M
 Photo Gallery
 Contact UsSite IndexStrategic PlanDLA IG HotlineFOIANo FEAR ActWhistleblower ProtectionDLA CareersImagesWebmasterEEOSection 508Public AffairsSAPRExternal Links DisclaimerDOD Information Quality GuidelinesPrivacy/SecurityUSA.govDOD Web PolicyDOD Open GovernmentPlain Language
                    Stay Connected
            
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
No. 10-7091.

#### Calvin Jermaine Vines, Petitioner v. Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1145, 131 S. Ct. 916,

178 L. Ed. 2d 765,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 504.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 429.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17241]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1222-DR]


New York; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of New York, (FEMA-1222-DR), dated June 16, 1998, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of New York, is hereby amended to include the following areas among 
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of June 16, 1998:

    Broome and Wyoming Counties for debris removal and emergency 
protective measures (Categories A and B) under the Public Assistance 
program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 98-17241 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
No. 10-7270.

#### Daniel R. Musgrove, Petitioner v. Steve Franke, Superintendent, Two Rivers Correctional Institution.

562 U.S. 1115, 131 S. Ct. 835,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9712.

178 L. Ed. 2d 568,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-6586.

#### Mohammed Karimzada, Petitioner v. Raymond Cunningham, Superintendent, Woodbourne Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 1049, 131 S. Ct. 609,

178 L. Ed. 2d 444,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8852.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7467** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. TYRONE DALE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cr - 00144

- RDB

- 1; 1:14

- cv - 00816

- RDB )

Submitted : March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN , Cir cuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Tyrone Dale, Appellant Pro Se. Clinton Jacob Fuchs, Assistant United States Attorney, Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tyrone Dale seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion as untimely . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice o r judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district cour t denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the d enial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dale has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense wi th oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Dealing effectively with pressure: DLA initiates resiliency training through LMS

/ Published Feb. 22, 2016
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, The Defense Logistics Agencydefines resiliency as dealing effectively with pressure, ambiguous and emergingconditions, and multiple tasks; remains optimistic and persistent, even underadversity or uncertainty. Simplified, resiliency is the ability to functionreally well in the face of adversity.
To help us better understandresilience and help our teammates cope with the challenges of life,"Bouncing Back with Perseverance and Resilience, part of WorkforceResiliency SkillSoft Deployment for Supervisors” has been added to the LearningManagement System for all supervisors and managers. Supervisors are required tocomplete the training by Feb. 29. 

The DLA Distribution mission isstraightforward: provide effective and efficient global solutions towarfighters and our other valued customers. By putting the warfighters first, we make promises and keep them.Resiliency helps with that goal.

The DLA vision is to deliver theright solution on time, every time.  “Ourability to anticipate and overcome logistical obstacles is credited in part toour agency’s resiliency,” said Twila Gonzales, SES, DLA Distribution deputy commander. “Our workforce is our greatest asset andwe support them as they face professional and personal challenges so that weare all more resilient.”
# C_2015302EN.01004602.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-314/13) (1)

1

((Cohesion Fund - Development of port infrastructures of the Autonomous Region of Madeira (Port of Caniçal) - Reduction of financial assistance - Non-compliance with the time-limit for adopting a decision - Infringement of essential procedural requirements))

(2015/C 302/59)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent, M. Gorjão-Henriques and J. da Silva Sampaio, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and D. Recchia, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision C (2013) 1870 final of 27 March 2013 reducing the contribution from the Cohesion Fund to the Portuguese Republic for the project ‘Development of port infrastructures of the Autonomous Region of Madeira — Port of Caniçal’, Madeira (Portugal).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C (2013) 1870 final of 27 March 2013 reducing the contribution from the Cohesion Fund to the Portuguese Republic for the project ‘Development of port infrastructures of the Autonomous Region of Madeira — Port of Caniçal’, Madeira (Portugal); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C (2013) 1870 final of 27 March 2013 reducing the contribution from the Cohesion Fund to the Portuguese Republic for the project ‘Development of port infrastructures of the Autonomous Region of Madeira — Port of Caniçal’, Madeira (Portugal);

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

1

---