alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014061EN.01000601.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Belgacom SA v Commune de Fléron

(Case C-685/13)

2014/C 61/09

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Belgacom SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Commune de Fléron

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the provisions of the Authorisation Directive, (1) and in particular Article 13 thereof pertaining to the methods of imposition of fees for rights of use for radiofrequencies and rights to install facilities on or under public or private property, preclude the imposition on mobile telecommunications operators by the communal administrative authorities of a Member State, by way of a municipal regulation, of a tax comprising a single and flat-rate fee of EUR 2 500 per pylon or mast, the fact giving rise to which is the presence of such pylon or mast on the territory of the commune on 1 January of the year of assessment, in the case where that tax does not represent remuneration and is motivated by budgetary and environmental objectives?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2605 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2605

 To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
      issue a final rule adding as a class all perfluoroalkyl and 
 polyfluoroalkyl substances with at least one fully fluorinated carbon 
 atom to the list of hazardous air pollutants under section 112(b) of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(b)), and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2019

Ms. Stevens (for herself, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Casten of Illinois, and Mr. 
   Khanna) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
      issue a final rule adding as a class all perfluoroalkyl and 
 polyfluoroalkyl substances with at least one fully fluorinated carbon 
 atom to the list of hazardous air pollutants under section 112(b) of 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(b)), 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 ``Prevent Release Of Toxics Emissions, 
Contamination, and Transfer Act of 2019'' or the ``PROTECT Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. LISTING OF PERFLUOROALKYL AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES AS 
              HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS.

    (a) Listing.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
shall issue a final rule adding as a class all perfluoroalkyl and 
polyfluoroalkyl substances with at least one fully fluorinated carbon 
atom to the list of hazardous air pollutants under section 112(b) of 
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(b)).
    (b) Sources Categories.--Not later than 365 days after the final 
rule is issued pursuant to subsection (a), the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency shall revise the list under section 
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(c)(1)) to include 
categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of 
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances listed pursuant to such 
final rule.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-6368.

#### Jackie Lyn Coulombe, Petitioner v. City of Oxnard, California, et al.

562 U.S. 1104, 131 S. Ct. 816,

178 L. Ed. 2d 550,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9475.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1014, 131 S. Ct. 530, 178 L. Ed. 2d 390, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8625.
# C_2014052EN.01004501.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/45

---

Appeal brought on 30 December 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 17 October 2013 in Case F-145/12 Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-699/13 P)

2014/C 52/86

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

| — | set aside in its entirety the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in its entirety the order under appeal;

| — | refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put forward in Case T-698/13 P Marcuccio v Commission.

Marcuccio

Commission

---
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 15-0544V 

Filed: January 21, 2016 

UNPUBLISHED 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

DIANE M. SPHAR, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

 * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Radial Nerve 

 * Injury; Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Wesly Matthew Nakajima, OConnor Acciani and Levy, LPA, Cincinnati, OH, for 

petitioner. 

Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On May 28, 2015, Diane Sphar filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 [the 

“Vaccine Act”]. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a radial nerve injury in her right arm 

as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on November 18, 2013. Petition 

at 2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special 

Masters. 

On January 21, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she 

concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent states that based on the current record, 

petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id. at 4. 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 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 information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the 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 Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
2

 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
Exhibit 99.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this
Quarterly Report of Zenascent, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (this "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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company as of September 30, 2002 and
December 31, 2001 and its results of operations for the three-month and
nine-month periods ended September 30, 2002.

                                        /s/ James DiLorenzo
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        Name: James DiLorenzo
                        Title: Executive Vice President
                               (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


Date: November 19, 2002
No. 10-5714.

#### Santiago Valdivia-Perez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 935, 131 S. Ct. 338,

178 L. Ed. 2d 220,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7264.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
No. 10-6215.

#### Elizabeth McCray, Petitioner v. Chrysler LLC.

562 U.S. 1067, 131 S. Ct. 647,

178 L. Ed. 2d 487,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9313,

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 539.
EXHIBIT 10.25 - ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This Addendum (the "Addendum") is made effective as of the 12th day  of
December,  2001 and is intended  to amend a certain  Employment  Agreement  (the
"Agreement")  by and between  Erie  Indemnity  Company  and  Douglas F.  Ziegler
effective as of December 15, 1999.

         WHEREAS, the Company has determined that it is in the best interest  of
the Company  and its  Shareholders  to secure the  continued  employment  of the
Executive in accordance with the terms of the Agreement; and

         WHEREAS,  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Company at its meeting of
December  11, 2001 has again  agreed to extend the term of the  Agreement  for a
period of one (1) additional year as contained herein; and

         WHEREAS, the Executive is agreeable to the extension of the Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree
         as follows:

          1.  Paragraph 1 of the  Agreement  with  respect to the Term is hereby
          amended by extending the Term to expire on December 15, 2003.

          2. All other  terms and  conditions  of the  Agreement  remain in full
          force and effect.


ATTEST:                                 ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY


/s/  Jan R. Van Gorder                  By: /s/  F. William Hirt
     Jan R. Van Gorder                           F. William Hirt
     Secretary                                   Chairman of the Board


WITNESS:

/s/  Sheila M. Hirsch                       /s/  Douglas F. Ziegler
     Sheila M. Hirsch                            Douglas F. Ziegler
     Executive Secretary                         378 Ridgeview Drive
                                                 Erie, PA   16505


                                       40
#### Karen E.A., an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Maria Mercedes M., et al., Respondents, v 545 West 146th Street, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[49 NYS3d 404]-

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered February 2, 2016, awarding plaintiffs the total sum of $240,123.23, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This action for personal injuries was referred to a Special Referee for an inquest and report on the issue of damages. Defendant 545 West 146th Street, Inc. (defendant) waived its right to object to entry of the plastic surgeon’s report, dated August 11, 2008, as a business record, as it is undisputed that plaintiffs served it with notice of their intention to enter the document into evidence, and defendant failed to object, as required by CPLR 3122-a (c) *(see Siemucha v Garrison,*111 AD3d 1398, 1400 [4th Dept 2013]; *Streicker v Adir Rent A Car,*279 AD2d 385 [1st Dept 2001]).

Defendant’s failure to comply with CPLR 3122-a did not prevent it from objecting to the report’s admissibility based on other rules of evidence *(see Bostic v State of New York,*232 AD2d 837 [1996], *lv denied*89 NY2d 807 [1997]). However, defendant’s objection that the plastic surgeon’s report was not admissible because it was prepared for the purpose of litigation and was not germane to diagnosis and the child’s treatment is not preserved for appellate review *(see Benavides v City of New*
      *465
      *York,*115 AD3d 518, 519 [1st Dept 2014]; *Braunstein v Taj Group of Hotels,*235 AD2d 370 [1st Dept 1997], *lv denied*89 NY2d 816 [1997]). Even if this Court were to find that the report was inadmissible, there was sufficient evidence adduced at the inquest to support the award for future pain and suffering because the Special Referee saw the child’s scar and published what he observed for the record *(see e.g. Bischert v Limousine Rental Serv.,*33 AD2d 355, 357 [3d Dept 1970]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.
No. 10-6036.

#### Jaquavis Taylor, Petitioner v. Nick Ludwick, Warden.

562 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 511,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8659.

178 L. Ed. 2d 379,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 21.1**
**EaglePicher Holdings, Inc.**
**Subsidiaries of EaglePicher Incorporated (“EPI”)**       Cincinnati Industrial Machinery Sales Company [Ohio]    Daisy Parts, Inc. [Michigan]    Eagle-Picher Acceptance Corporation [Ohio]    Eagle-Picher Development Company, Inc. [Delaware]     EPMR Corporation [Michigan]    Eagle-Picher Far East, Inc. [Delaware]    Eagle-Picher, Inc. [Virgin Islands]    Eagle-Picher Industries of Canada Limited [Canada]    Eagle-Picher Industries Europe B.V. [Netherlands]     Eagle-Picher Automotive GmbH [Germany]     Eagle-Picher UK Limited [England and Wales]      Eagle-Picher Hillsdale Limited [England and Wales]     Eagle-Picher Wolverine GmbH [Germany]      Eagle-Picher Technologies GmbH [Germany]    EaglePicher Filtration & Minerals, Inc. [Nevada]     Eagle-Picher Minerals International S.A.R.L. [France]      Eagle-Picher Minerals Europe GmbH & Co. KG [Germany]      Eagle-Picher Minerals Europe Verwaltungs- und Beteiligungs GmbH [Germany]    EaglePicher Technologies, LLC [Delaware]     Eagle-Picher Energy Products Corp. [Canada]     EaglePicher Pharmaceutical Services, LLC [Delaware]    EPTEC, S.A. de C.V. [Mexico]    Eagle Picher Funding Corporation [Delaware] (10% held by EaglePicher Holdings, Inc.)    EaglePicher Investments, LLC [Arizona]     EaglePicher Horizon Batteries, LLC [Delaware]     EP NTZ Micro Filtration, LLC [Delaware]    EaglePicher Automotive, Inc. [Michigan]     Carpenter Enterprises Limited [Michigan]    
103
# Subsistence delivers lobster tails for inaugural dinner aboard USS Zumwalt

/ Published June 9, 2016
PHILADELPHIA, 

The inaugural dinner aboard the Navy’s newest guided-missile destroyer included 160 pounds of lobster tails that were delivered just in time, thanks to the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Subsistence team.

The Navy accepted delivery of the future USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) May 20 at the Bath Iron Works shipyard in Maine. The 610-foot-long Zumwalt is the lead ship of the Navy’s next generation of multi-mission surface combatants.

A few weeks before the ship delivery, Subsistence received an order request for about 20 items, most of which were delivered. However, the Subsistence prime vendor did not have the requested lobster tails.

The Subsistence team reached out to other vendors throughout New England to locate sources with the sufficient quantities and sizes of lobster.

“We were exploring all routes,” said Amanda Holzerman, the tailored vendor logistics specialist overseeing the order. “I even told them (the Zumwalt crew), ‘if you can’t get it through us, you might have to go to a farmers market.’”

When contract specialist Timothy Davis contacted a Subsistence vendor in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, he talked to a father whose son had just joined the Navy. The vendor had the requested lobster tails and was going to be able to fill the order.

“He is a proud Navy dad willing to help out,” Davis said.

The Subsistence team then had to work out how to get the lobster tails from Pennsylvania to Maine. The vendor had another customer about an hour from Bath Iron Works. So a meeting was arranged at an Old Country Buffet parking lot where Navy food service personnel picked up the lobster tails from the vendor.

The lobster tails were delivered aboard the Zumwalt and thawed out just in time for the inaugural dinner preparations.

Following a crew certification period and October commissioning ceremony in Baltimore, the Zumwalt will transit to its homeport in San Diego, according to the Navy.
* The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2697

___________ Lois Lewis, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner * of Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 25, 2003 Filed: November 26, 2003

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Lois Lewis appeals the district court’s * dismissal as time-barred Lewis's complaint seeking review of the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Having carefully reviewed the record and-2- the parties’ submissions on appeal, we conclude dismissal of the complaint was proper, because it was filed more than sixty days after Lewis's attorney received notice of the Commissioner’s final decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Bess v. Barnhart , 337 F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (limitations period under § 405(g) is triggered by notice received by either claimant or claimant’s attorney, whichever occurs first). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
# DLA senior enlisted leader visits senior enlisted advisor to the Joint Chiefs

/ Published Oct. 23, 2015
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

VAUGHN YOUNG,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 78 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of July, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Com. v. Valentine

05/03/2016

761 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 133 A.3d 64
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                    CERTIFICATIONS

I, Stephan W. Zumsteg, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Energy Conversion
  Devices, Inc.

  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
  a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
  statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
  information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
  the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
  registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

  4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
  establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
  Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
     prepared;

     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
     control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
     recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
     of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
     to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

  5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
  our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
  the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
  directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
     summarize and report financial information; and

     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting.



October 22, 2003                              /s/ Stephan W. Zumsteg
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Chief Financial Officer


                                        143