alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16059]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3082]


State of Kentucky; Amendment #3

    In accordance with a notice from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency dated June 3, 1998, the above-numbered Declaration is hereby 
amended to include Letcher County in the State of Kentucky as a 
disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms, tornadoes, and 
flooding beginning on April 16, 1998 and continuing through May 10, 
1998.
    All counties contiguous to the above-named primary county have been 
previously declared.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for physical damage is June 28, 1998 and for 
economic injury the termination date is January 29, 1999.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: June 10, 1998.
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-16059 Filed 6-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# C_2013079EN.01003101.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/31

---

Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Donnici v Parliament

(Case T-43/13)

2013/C 79/52

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Beniamino Donnici (Castrolibero, Italy) (represented by: V. Vallefuoco and J. Van Gyseghem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should find serious fault on the part of the European Parliament in relation to its decision adopted on 24 May 2007 to the applicant’s disadvantage, subsequently annulled by the judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 April 2009 and, thus, order the European Parliament to make good the material and non-material damage suffered or to be suffered by him as a result of that unlawful measure, even on an equitable basis which amounts to EUR 1 720 470, or in such lesser amount as the Court considers appropriate. The applicant claims that the European Parliament should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present proceedings — who is also the applicant in Cases T-215/07 and C-9/08 Donnici v Parliament — seeks compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the defendant’s refusal to recognise the validity of his mandate as a member of the European Parliament. That decision was subsequently annulled by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Donnici

Parliament

In support of his action, the applicant submits that in the present case all the conditions established by the case-law for a declaration that the institutions of the European Union are non-contractually liable are satisfied; this applies in particular to:

| — | the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged; |
| --- | --- |

—

the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged;

| — | the requirement for the damage to be real; |
| --- | --- |

—

the requirement for the damage to be real;

| — | the existence of a causal link, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the existence of a causal link, and

| — | fault on the part of the European Union, or the degree of infringement by it. In that regard, the applicant states that, through the decision giving rise to the present proceedings, the defendant has disregarded in a sufficiently serious manner a rule intended to confer rights on individuals. |
| --- | --- |

—

fault on the part of the European Union, or the degree of infringement by it. In that regard, the applicant states that, through the decision giving rise to the present proceedings, the defendant has disregarded in a sufficiently serious manner a rule intended to confer rights on individuals.

---
NO. SCPW-12-0000022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

BURKE MCPHEETERS BORDNER & ESTES, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE RANDAL G.B VALENCIANO, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT

COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I and

DTRIC INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, Respondents.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CIVIL NO. 11-1-0076)

ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.

and Circuit Judge Chan, in place of Acoba, J., recused)

Upon consideration of petitioner Burke McPheeters

Bordner & Estes' petition for a writ of mandamus and the

responses thereto, it appears that: (1) Cades Schutte, as a

result of its representation of petitioner, obtained confidential

information of a non-public nature that, if known to any other

client of Cades Schutte, could be used by such client to

petitioner's material disadvantage and (2) petitioner's December

30, 2009 advanced conflict waiver did not, by its terms, apply in

such instance. Therefore, 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-12-0000022

17-MAY-2012

04:10 PM
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is granted. The respondent judge is directed to: (1)

vacate the December 12, 2011 order denying petitioner's motion to

disqualify Cades Schutte as plaintiff's counsel in Civil No. 11-

1-0076 and (2) enter an order disqualifying Cades Schutte as

plaintiff's counsel in Civil No. 11-1-0076.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 17, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133916 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

GWANJUN KIM and KEESOO KIM, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133916 

 COA: 277362 

Kent CC: 07-000187-CZ 

RONALD WERNETTE, JR., and 

BON GOU LEE, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal prior to decision by the 

Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court before consideration by the 

Court of Appeals. 

l0723 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**CLIPPER PIPE & SERVICE, INC.**

**v.**

**THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.; CONTRACTING SYSTEMS, INC. II** 

**PETITION OF: UNITED STATES**

**COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD**

**CIRCUIT :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 161 EM 2014** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 10 th**  **day of December, 2014, the Petition for Certificatio n of** 

**Question of Law submitted by the United States Court o f Appeals for the Third Circuit is** 

GRANTED **. This Court shall consider the following issue:**

**Under Pennsylvania law, does the Contractor and Subcon tractor Payment**  **Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§501-516, apply to a project wh ere the owner is a**  **governmental entity, such as the federal government in this case?** 

**The Prothonotary is** DIRECTED **to establish a briefing schedule and list this**

**matter for oral argument.**
No. 10-614.

#### Zhuang Li Cai, Petitioner v. Jaiml Uddin.

562 U.S. 1139, 131 S. Ct. 940,

178 L. Ed. 2d 755,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 71.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department, denied.

Same case below, 58 App. Div. 3d 746, 871 N.Y.S.2d 675.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00689-CV

J. M., Appellant 

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-EX-14-000672, HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant J.M. filed a notice of appeal challenging “an order signed September 29,

2014” in his underlying suit seeking expunction of records. However, there is no signed order on

his petition for expunction of records in the clerk’s record or in the supplemental clerk’s record,

only a September 24, 2014 docket entry. A docket entry does not constitute a written order.

In re Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of McAllen, Inc., 167 S.W.3d 827, 831 (Tex. 2005)

(orig. proceeding); see also Unifund CCR Partners v. Hackman, No. 05-06-01139-CV, 2007 Tex.

App. LEXIS 1118, at * 1-2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 15, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.). Without a final

judgment or an otherwise appealable order, we may not exercise appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
On October 31, 2014, this Court requested that J.M. file a written

response demonstrating this Court’s jurisdiction over his appeal. J.M.’s response failed to do so. 1

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

 

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: December 3, 2014

 J.M. requested and received an extension of time to file his response. 1

2
# C_2015089EN.01002102.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Enercon v OHIM (Shades of the colour green)

(Case T-655/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community trade mark consisting of a gradient of five shades of the colour green - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Reclassification of the mark applied for - Article 43(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 089/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm and S. Overhage, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 247/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of a gradient of five shades of the colour green as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

1

---
No. 10-611.

#### Stanley Logan, Petitioner v. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

562 U.S. 1110, 131 S. Ct. 837,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9644.

178 L. Ed. 2d 560,

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 660.
No. 10-6305.

#### Jovan Watkins, Petitioner v. Maryland Division of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 1031, 131 S. Ct. 588,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8739,

178 L. Ed. 2d 418,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 310.
# Providing hot meals to service members abroad ‘feeds spirits with warmth of home’ 

/ Published Dec. 21, 2023
PHILADELPHIA, 
Every year, a Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support team in Philadelphia ensures military members abroad have a taste of home during the holiday season. 

This year, DLA Troop Support’s Subsistence supply chain’s Christmas customers include additional military members who are currently deployed in Northern Europe as well as in the Middle East supporting various US ally efforts. 

By December 25, these service members will receive an estimated: 
      -  3,304 whole turkeys  
      -  54,711 pounds of roasted turkey  
      -  78,910 pounds of beef  
      -  37,677 pounds of ham  
      -  24,149 pounds of shrimp  
      -  10,237 cans of sweet potatoes  
      -  37,576 pies and cakes  
      -  5,076 cans of eggnog  
      -  And many other holiday treats  

These quantities generally represent a smaller number of food goods compared to what was delivered in time for Thanksgiving this year: 
      -  28,945 whole turkeys  
      -  82,592 pounds of roasted turkeys  
      -  145,760 pounds of beef  
      -  70,957 pounds of ham  
      -  40,534 pounds of shrimp  
      -  5,007 pounds of sweet potatoes  
      -  46,464 pies and cakes  
      -  7,407 cans of eggnog  
      -  And many other holiday treats  

According to Lauren Austin, customer operations branch chief at DLA Troop Support, items intended for Christmas can also be included in the orders for Thanksgiving—making it challenging to completely differentiate between the two holidays. 

Ultimately, the customer determines how the inventory is used upon receipt for either holiday. 

“DLA Troop Support takes great pride in ensuring every order placed is delivered to the troops around the world,” said Robin Whaley, subsistence division chief of Outside Continental United States customer operations. “Supporting our military during the holiday season by providing hot meals not only nourishes their bodies but also feeds their spirits with the warmth of home. It's a mission with a profound impact, connecting us all at Troop Support in the shared joy of reminding those in service that they are cherished, especially during this special time of year.” 

DLA Troop Support, located in Philadelphia, is a major subordinate command of the Defense Logistics Agency, with a global presence including offices in Europe & Africa and the Pacific regions. It is responsible for four supply chains that provide our nation’s military and government partners with: food and feeding equipment; clothing and textile items; construction and equipment materiel; and medical materiel and pharmaceuticals.
EXHIBIT 21.1
                          ------------
                 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                 ------------------------------

The Company has the following subsidiaries, each of which is wholly
owned by the Company or by a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company. Indented names are subsidiaries of the company under which
they are indented.


     Clear Shield National, Inc. (California)
        Carnival Brands, Inc. (Illinois)
     Envirosonics, Inc. (California)
           Sandusky Plastics, Inc. (Delaware)
        Envirodyne Subsidiary, Inc. (Delaware)
     Sandusky Plastics of Delaware, Inc. (Delaware)
     Viskase Corporation (Pennsylvania)
        Viskase Holding Corporation (Delaware)
           Viskase Argentina S.A. (Argentina)
           Viskase Australia Limited (Delaware)
           Viskase Brasil Embalagens Ltda. (Brazil)
           Viskase de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
           Viskase Europe Limited (United Kingdom)
              Viskase S.A. (France)
                 Viskase Canada Inc. (Ontario)
                 Viskase GMBH (Germany)
                 Viskase Holdings Limited (United Kingdom)
                    Filmco International Limited (United Kingdom)
                    Viskase Limited (United Kingdom)
                        Viskase (U.K.) Limited (United Kingdom)
                               Envirodyne S.A.R.L. (France)
                  Viskase S.p.A. (Italy)
                 Viskase ZAO (Russia)
        Viskase de Nuevo Laredo, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
        Viskase Sales Corporation (Delaware)
           Viskase Puerto Rico Corporation (Delaware)
     WSC Corp. (Delaware)
NO. 07-04-0511-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	FEBRUARY 16, 2005

	______________________________

	IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF

	FREDERICK IRWIN CHADWICK AND

	TAMMY SUE CHADWICK AND

	IN THE INTEREST OF C.L.C., A CHILD 

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF LIPSCOMB COUNTY;

	NO. 03-10-3797; HONORABLE STEVEN EMMERT, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	On February 11, 2005, the appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal.  No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.  No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.1.   All costs incurred are adjudged against the party incurring the same.    

							James T. Campbell

						    	        Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ERIE
FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY'S STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AND STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS DATED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND ARE QUALIFIED IN THEIR ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       558,177,487
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                 120,841,893
<MORTGAGE>                                  10,049,733
<REAL-ESTATE>                                1,624,306
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             703,033,372
<CASH>                                      42,287,398
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             350,837
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      64,567,085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             832,533,863
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            618,574,722
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            131,926
<POLICY-OTHER>                               2,049,677
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        6,595,330
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,410,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 155,969,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               832,533,863
<PREMIUMS>                                  35,193,472
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         49,914,292
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                           5,201,365
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 728,269
<BENEFITS>                                  47,544,420
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  3,694,966
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         9,594,757
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             30,203,255
<INCOME-TAX>                                10,642,887
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         19,560,368
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                19,560,368
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.07
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             542
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    49572
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       3377
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 56037
<PP&E>                                           50326
<DEPRECIATION>                                   28098
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   78859
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            29637
<BONDS>                                          10000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           737
<OTHER-SE>                                       38410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     78859
<SALES>                                          27598
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                159377
<CGS>                                            20700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   139317
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 13815
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (123)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6137
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2008
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4129
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4129
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64


</TABLE>
# DLA unveils advanced payment systems fuel points across JBLM

/ Published Feb. 13, 2024
JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Wash., 
Five fuel points across Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, have upgraded their fleet fuel systems from Automated Fuel Service Stations (AFSS) to Electronic Points of Sale (EPoS) systems during February 2024. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) began testing these systems in January of 2022 at Fort Belvoir and Davison Army Airfield, Va. and continues to expand the installation of this system to Defense Fuel Supply Points (DFSP) across the globe.

"This rollout is a significant contribution to the DLA director's objective 3.3: update customer service," said DLA Energy Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Jimmy Canlas, in a 2022 article. "It makes doing business with DLA much more streamlined for these customers."

EPoS utilizes Quick Response (QR) codes to link lines of accounting to specific vehicles for the remainder of that vehicle's lifetime. A scan of the purchaser's Common Access Card (CAC) alongside the QR code eliminates the need for units to regulate access to fuel keys, minimizes the misuse of fuel on military installations, and provides real-time accounting information on both the codes and cards logged.

Security concerns and fraud issues were the main reasons for the upgrade, said Bradley Zink, a fuel accountant with TK&K Services contracted by DLA to run the fuel points on JBLM. He stated that the AFSS system's key-controlled access could be turned off locally but remain operational elsewhere. Now, within 30 seconds of a code getting shut off, access is revoked at all stations worldwide, said Zink.

The system automatically logs seller and purchaser information, reducing the need to save receipts and correct billing errors. The EPoS system is available online and offline, allowing DLA and individual units to capture real-time fuel consumption and government expenditures.

"EPoS will be the primary method of purchasing fuel for military equipment," said Chief Warrant Officer 3 Hypatia Steele, the G4 Senior Petroleum and Bulk Water Advisor to I Corps. "VIL (vehicle installation link) Keys are a thing of the past."