alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 143 (Thursday, July 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 44928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17883]

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Nevada Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Nevada 
Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will convene on 
Friday, August 16, 2013, at 1:00 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 3:00 
p.m. at the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, 2800 
East St. Louis Ave., Las Vegas, Nevada 89104. The agenda and purpose of 
the meeting is for the Committee to plan its project on policing and 
the administration of justice.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the Western Regional Office by September 
16, 2013. The mailing address is Western Regional Office, U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles St., Suite 2010, Los 
Angeles, CA 90032. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so to 
atrevino@usccr.gov. Persons that desire additional information should 
contact the Western Regional Office at (213) 894-3437.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Western Regional Office at the above 
email or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Chicago, IL, July 22, 2013.
David Mussatt,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2013-17883 Filed 7-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

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

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.36 MB)

Tags:DLA L&M, Culture L&M, Mentee, Whitehall-Yearling High School, land and maritime, Mentor

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases

WORK GROUP PLANS AND TIMELINES

Susan Hills, MBBS, MTH

CDC Lead, Chikungunya Vaccines Work Group

Arboviral Diseases Branch

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

ACIP meeting

June 22, 2023
Work Group timeline (tentative)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept

2024

(Today) Perceptions Present EtRs

of chikungunya 

vaccine, Laboratory 

workers, Paraguay 

outbreak

ACIP vote on vaccine 

recommendations for 

adult travelers and 

laboratory workers

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

2023

FDA accepted BLA and 

granted Priority Review Possible licensure

Consideration of 

chikungunya 

vaccine use 

among residents 

of U.S. territories 

and states at risk 

for outbreaks
Longer term Work Group plans and activities

 Future presentations on topics relevant to consideration of vaccine use in 

U.S. territories and states with risk of transmission

 Possibly additional vaccine data in younger age groups and/or additional 

chikungunya vaccines

24
Thank you
No. 10-7554.

#### Santiago Mendoza, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1186, 131 S. Ct. 1013,

178 L. Ed. 2d 841,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 754,

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1
           Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18
             U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection  with this annual report of Espey Mfg. &  Electronics  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the period  ended  June 30,  2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"),  I, Howard
Pinsley, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

      1.    The report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    The  information  contained in this report fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Date: September 27, 2005


                                                      /s/Howard Pinsley
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      Howard Pinsley
                                                      President and
                                                      Chief Executive Officer


32
No. 10-7612.

#### Douglas Allen Ashcroft, Petitioner v. Oregon, et al.

562 U.S. 1188, 131 S. Ct. 1018,

178 L. Ed. 2d 844,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 898.

January 18, 2011.

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

Same case below, 398 Fed. Appx. 301.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0129 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-105-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 13CAFN1027

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### Thomas Knauer, Respondent, v Diane L. Anderson, as Executrix of William F. Anderson, Sr., Deceased, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. Diane L. Anderson, as Executrix of William F. Anderson, Sr, Deceased, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v Ronald A. Knauer, Jr, Doing Business as Knauer Electric, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, Intervenor-Respondent; New York State Insurance Fund, Intervenor-Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[769 NYS2d 443]

— Appeal from those parts of an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Howe, J.), entered February 7, 2002, providing that the court would conduct a hearing to determine plaintiff’s employment status and staying the proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Board pending that hearing.

*1312It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Gorski, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18049]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4341-N-18]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Johnston, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Room 7256, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 
20410; telephone (202) 708-1226; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-
7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1998 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: July 2, 1998.
Fred Karnas, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development.
[FR Doc. 98-18049 Filed 7-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
Excel Version of Engineering/Economics Tables

LBL, 3/3/95

Table 4.1 ENGINEERING/ECONOMIC CALCULATIONS FOR

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts with

One F40 T12/RE70 LAMP

COMMERCIAL SECTOR

2000 Electricity Cost ($ 1994/kWh) $0.075

Annual Lighting Hours 4100

Labor Rates ($ 1994 per hour) $29.35 $42.10

Real Discount Rates 4% 8% 12%

Period (years) 11.71

PV Ballast

Equip +

PV Lamp

Equip + Total Ballast Normalized Annual

Labor Cost Labor Cost Installed Service Fixture Energy Annual Payback Total LCC ($)

Design (PV@8%) Cost Life Watts Use Elect (@ 8%) 4% 8% 12%

No. Design Option ($ 1994) ($1994) ($ 1994) (years) (kWh/yr) Cost($) (years)

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

0 Energy-Efficient Magnetic 22.28 25.10 47.38 11.71 51.1 209 15.71 NA 196 164 141 28♦69 25.10 _,M.36

1 Cathode Cutout 28.66 25.15) 53.76 11.71 49.0 201 15.06 9.9 196 166 143 28.69 2. 10-" 22.36

2 Electronic, Rapid Start 10% 39.11 25.10 64.21 11.71 40.9 168 12.57 5.4 184 158 138 28.69 0 22.36

3 Electronic, Rapid Start 50% 39.11 25.10 64.21 11.71 39.5 162 12. 14 4.7 180 154 136 28.69 k 25 22.36

4 Maximum Efficiency 39.11 25.10 64.21 11.71 38.3 157 11.76 4.3 176 152 133 28,66 25.10 .36

Lamp Replacement Cost: Lamp Lamp Lamp Lamp

PV Lamp

Equip + Ballast Ballast Ballast Ballast

Equip Labor Time to Relamp Service Labor Cost Consumer Labor Time to Equip +

Design Cost Cost Change Life Life ($1994) Price Cost Install Labor Cost

No. Design Option ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) (hours) (years) 4% 8% 12.0% ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) ($1994)

0 Energy-Efficient Magnetic 3.16 6.60 13.5 14000 3.41 28.69 25.10 22.36 12.46 9.82 165 22.28

1 Cathode Cutout 3.16 6.60 133 14000 3.41 28.69 25.10 22.36 18.84 9.82 16.5 28.66

2 Electronic, Rapid Start 10% 3.16 6.60 13.5 14000 3.41 28.69 25.10 22.36 29.29 9.82 165 39.11

3 Electronic, Rapid Start 50% 3.16 6.60 13.5 14000 3.41 28.69 25.10 22.36 29.29 9.82 16.5 39.11

4 Maximum Efficiency 3.16 6.60 13.5 14000 3.41 28.69 25.10 22.36 29.29 9.82 163 39.11

Energy Analysis Program 3/13/95 Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

Lamp Ballasts Workshop March 17, 1995 Comment 03
# C_2014061EN.01001602.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/16

---

Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Monster Energy v OHIM (REHABILITATE)

(Case T-712/13)

2014/C 61/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 given in Case R 609/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 given in Case R 609/2013-1;

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘REHABILITATE’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 10 834 802

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and Article 4 CTMR

Pleas in law:

---
No. 10-5826.

#### Justin L. Venegas, Petitioner v. Texas.

562 U.S. 1125, 131 S. Ct. 854,

178 L. Ed. 2d 584,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9627.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 968, 131 S. Ct. 471, 178 L. Ed. 2d 299, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7982.
No. 10-7550.

#### Steven Rutherford, Petitioner v. Employment Standards Administration, et al.

562 U.S. 1176, 131 S. Ct. 1036,

178 L. Ed. 2d 824,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 869.

January 18, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until February 8, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1of the Rules of this Court.
No. 10-7682.

#### Michael Marzzarella, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1158, 131 S. Ct. 958,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 327.

178 L. Ed. 2d 790,

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 614 F.3d 85.
# C_2016287EN.01000801.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff v Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe, Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe

(Case C-438/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Article 21 TFEU - Freedom to move and reside in the Member States - Law of a Member State abolishing privileges and prohibiting the conferring of new noble titles - Surname of an adult, national of that State, obtained during a habitual residence in another Member State of which that person also holds the nationality - Name comprising tokens of nobility - Residence in the first Member State - Refusal by the authorities of the first Member State to enter the name acquired in the second Member State in the register of civil status - Justification - Public policy - Incompatibility with the essential principles of German law))

(2016/C 287/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff

Applicant:

Defendants: Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe, Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities of a Member State are not bound to recognise the name of a citizen of that Member State when he also holds the nationality of another Member State in which he has acquired that name which he has chosen freely and which contains a number of tokens of nobility, which are not accepted by the law of the first Member State, provided that it is established, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, that a refusal of recognition is, in that context, justified on public policy grounds, in that it is appropriate and necessary to ensure compliance with the principle that all citizens of that Member State are equal before the law.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.

1

---
No. 10-7244.

#### Van Phong Nguyen, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1076, 131 S. Ct. 679,

178 L. Ed. 2d 505,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9171.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 608 F.3d 368.
# C_2014052EN.01004401.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/44

---

Action brought on 31 December 2013 — ENAC v Commission and TEN-T EA

(Case T-695/13)

2014/C 52/83

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile (ENAC) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Garofoli, lawyer, and G. Palmieri, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendants: Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), European Commission

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s note of 23 October 2013, ref. Ares (203) 3321778, concerning the ‘Study for developing the intermodality of Bergamo-Orio al Serio Airport’, in which the Commission announced both the launch of the procedure for obtaining reimbursement of part of the financial assistance granted for the carrying-out of that study and the issuing of a debit note for a total of EUR 158 517,54; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s note of 23 October 2013, ref. Ares (203) 3321778, concerning the ‘Study for developing the intermodality of Bergamo-Orio al Serio Airport’, in which the Commission announced both the launch of the procedure for obtaining reimbursement of part of the financial assistance granted for the carrying-out of that study and the issuing of a debit note for a total of EUR 158 517,54;

| — | annul the decision of 18 March 2013 adopted by the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), referred to in the Commission’s note of 23 October 2013, concerning the ‘Closure of Action 2009-IT-91407-S — Study for developing the intermodality of Bergamo-Orio al Serio Airport — Commission Decision C(2010) 4456’, in so far as it found that the costs related to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which had already been carried out, could not be identified, and, thus, could not be subsidised, and requested repayment of EUR 158 517,54. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 18 March 2013 adopted by the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), referred to in the Commission’s note of 23 October 2013, concerning the ‘Closure of Action 2009-IT-91407-S — Study for developing the intermodality of Bergamo-Orio al Serio Airport — Commission Decision C(2010) 4456’, in so far as it found that the costs related to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which had already been carried out, could not be identified, and, thus, could not be subsidised, and requested repayment of EUR 158 517,54.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decisions at issue in the present case are the same as those contested in Case T-270/13 and Case T-692/13 SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA.

SACBO

Commission and TEN-T EA

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to the ones raised in those cases.

---
No. 10-582.

#### Gilbert Tiffee, et al., Petitioners v. Citizens Telecommunications Company, et al.

562 U.S. 1138, 131 S. Ct. 933,

178 L. Ed. 2d 753,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 430.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 638.
DLA COLUMBUS - AFGE LOCAL 1148

LOCALLY NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT
ARTICLE 49

Wellness/Fitness Program

SECTION 1. The parties recognize that DSCC has a base fitness facility. A DSCC Employee
who participates in the wellness and fitness program will use the DSCC facility when working
on base.

SECTION 2. An Employee who participates in in the wellness and fitness program on a day in
which they telework may use an approved alternate fitness location. Travel time of over ten (10)
minutes to the alternate fitness location will not be approved as fitness time.

SECTION 3. Fitness time will not occur during core hours.

FOR THE UNION FOR THE EMPLOYER
ROBIN MENEFEE DON SCHULZE
Chief Negotiator for Local 1148 Chief Negotiator for DSCC Columbus

30 JUNE 2023 30 JUNE 2023