alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Revised April 29, 1999

Supply Process Review Committee (PRC) Meeting 99-2 Tentative Agenda

May 18-19, 1999

HQ Complex Conference Room 3501

Topic Day/Time

1 Welcome/Opening Remarks/Introductions Day 1/9:30

2 EDI Integrated Product Team (IPT) Progress Report

IPT developed implementation plan/X12 policy guidance.

Day 1/9:45

3 Clarification of RDD/NMICS/ANMICS Guidance

Current Super Reg and MILSTRIP do not agree. DLMSO working with DUSD(L) to make

administrative changes to reconcile.

Day 1/10:15

4 F/AD I Validation Implementation Status

Discussion issues include:

Service/Agency evaluation of current process.

Potential to expand automatic downgrading incrementally, e.g. civil agency requisitions.

MUL presentation by J4

Day 1/10:30

5 DLMS Quarterly Status Review

Report will be released prior to meeting.

Take action as appropriate (approve proposals/set implementation dates).

Day 1/11:30

6 EMALL

Issues related to Proposed DLMS Change 26.

EMALL progress report.

Material receipt acknowledgement (MRA)/logistics response time (LRT) requirements for

EMALL requisitions.

Day 1/1:00

7 Project Code 3AB

Resolution of definitions for existing and new codes if required.

Day 2/8:15

8 Y2K Letter to DAASC Customers

(Bill Perkins, DAASC contractor support)

Day 2/8:30

9 DEPRA Policy Changes

Coordinate Service decisions to terminate DEPRA processing.

Day 2/9:00

10 Weapon System Coding

DLIS progress/plan.

DLA WSDC demonstration.

Day 2/10:00

11 Intransit to Disposal

Pilferable item/batch lotting – DRMS waiver request.

(Tom Ruckdashel, DLSC-LCM)

Day 2/1:00

12 Prepositioned Material Receipts for Retail Co-located Stocks

Depot issue (Navy interface problem): PMRD file mismatch following IMM decision to

satisfy requirement via DVD. Original PMRD reversed. New PMRD with contract no.

missing additional required data.

DLA suggestion to leave original PMRD in place and track by document no.

(Carolyn Farley, DLSC-LDA)

Day 2/2:00

13 Comment Resolution - RFID for Approved MILSTRAP Change 15,

New Ownership Code 0 for Special Operations Forces

(Responses due May 3rd per Apr 5th followup)

Day 2/3:00

14 Comment Resolution - Proposed DLMS Change 23, Storage Activity OnHand Asset Balance Data Sharing

(Responses due April 30th per Mar 30th followup)

Day 2/3:30
2

15 Comment Resolution - RFID for Approved DLMS Change 14, New SCC

V , Unserviceable (Waste, Military Munitions)

(Responses due April 30th per Mar 31st followup)

Day 2/4:00

16 DLMS Status Code

Discuss potential for expanding to three position codes.

Consider translation requirements (New code BK/BK2 issue).

Filler – No

set time

17 Procedures for DLMS Enhanced Data

Recommendations for priority.

Taskings for drafting procedures.

Filler – No

set time

18 New Project Code Y2K

Administrative announcement.

Filler – No

set time
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1521

ELBERT HICKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN E. POTTER, U.S. Postal Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, Senior 

District Judge. (2:10-cv-00246-JBF-FBS)

Submitted: October 26, 2011 Decided: November 7, 2011

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elbert Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Elbert Hicks seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing without prejudice his employment discrimination 

complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

46 (1949). Because Hicks may proceed with this action by 

amending his complaint to provide specific facts showing his 

entitlement to the relief he seeks, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 

the order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar 

Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 

(4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000034046
<NAME> EXOLON-ESK COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,328
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,018
<ALLOWANCES>                                       150
<INVENTORY>                                     16,929
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,611
<PP&E>                                          76,633
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,707
<BONDS>                                         19,833
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        442
<COMMON>                                         1,026
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,442
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,088
<SALES>                                         51,219
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,219
<CGS>                                           42,081
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,775
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (975)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    832
<INCOME-TAX>                                       183
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                649
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       649
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59


</TABLE>
No. 10-7807.

#### Khalid Awan, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1170, 131 S. Ct. 969,

178 L. Ed. 2d 806,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 567.

January 10, 2011.

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

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 607 F.3d 306 and 384 Fed. Appx. 9.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000032284
<NAME>                                         Orion Diversified Technologies

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         129,412
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       18,469
<OTHER-SE>                                   (147,881)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        0
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (32,784)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                32,784
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,784)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .02



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.2****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No:33-43087) pertaining to the Ennis, Inc. 1991 Incentive Stock Option Plan, the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-58963) pertaining to the Ennis, Inc. 1998 Option and RestrictedStock Plan, and the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-38100 and 333-44624) pertainingto the Ennis, Inc. 401(k) Plan, of our report dated April 14, 2004, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of Ennis, Inc. and subsidiaries included intheir Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2006, filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission./s/ ERNST& YOUNG LLP
No. 11-92.

#### Orient Mineral Company, et al., Petitioners v. Bank of China.

565 U.S. 882, 132 S. Ct. 250,

181 L. Ed. 2d 144,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5357.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 416 Fed. Appx. 721.
Vaccinations among Adolescents (13 – 17 years)

The Trend tab shows vaccination coverage estimates across multiple geographies over time. Select one Vaccine, one or more Geographies, one 

or more Survey Years and one Age group to view coverage estimates.

Hover to see specific 

vaccination coverage 

estimates.

Right click to see vaccination 

coverage in table format.

Slide the 

Coverage bar to 

expand data.

Options under the Select 

an Age filter are 

dependent on the vaccine 

selected. Ex. 13-15 years

and 13-17 years appears

under the Select an Age

filter when 1 dose 

Meningococcal Vaccine is 

selected.
The Multi-Vaccine Trend tab shows vaccination coverage trends for multiple vaccines over time. Select one Age group, one or more Vaccines, 

one Geography, and one or more Survey Years to view coverage estimate. 

Hover to see 

specific coverage 

estimates.

Right click to see vaccination 

coverage in table format.

Slide the 

Coverage bar to 

expand data.

Options under the 

Select Vaccines filter 

are dependent on the 

age selected. Ex. 

Additional vaccines 

appear if “13-17 Years” 

is selected under the 

Select an Age filter.
The Coverage by Demographics tab shows vaccination coverage trends by demographics. For this view, five years of survey data have been 

combined to get adequate sample sizes to estimate vaccination coverage by demographic subgroups at the state level. Select one or more 

Vaccines, one Geography, and one or more Dimensions to view coverage estimates.

Hover to see 

specific coverage 

estimates.

Right click to see vaccination 

coverage in table format.
The Map tab shows vaccination coverage estimates across multiple geographies for a single vaccine, age group, and survey year. Select one 

Vaccine, one or more Geographies, one Age, and one Survey Year to view coverage estimates.

Hover to see 

additional coverage 

estimates.

Right click to see data in table 

format.

Hover over a state 

on the map to see 

additional 

information.

Options under the 

Select an Age filter 

are dependent on 

the Vaccine selected. 

Oversampled regions 

vary by year and are 

not associated with 

an HHS Region.

Click legend 

group to 

highlight 

specific 

states/cities.

Click City & Territory 

Abbreviations for 

additional information.
The Sample Characteristics tab shows the sociodemographic characteristics of survey respondents in the NIS-Teen by survey year. Select one 

Sample, one or more Sample Characteristics, one Geography, and one or more Survey Years to view sample characteristic distributions.

Hover to see 

specific coverage 

estimates.

.

Right click to see coverage 

estimates in table format.

Slide the 

Percent of 

Samples bar to 

expand data.
The Data Table tab shows vaccination data in a table format. Upon arriving on this tab, the table will be blank. Make selections using the 

dropdown filters on the left. Select one or more Vaccines, Geographies, Survey Years and Age Groups to view data.

The Data Notes tab provides information about the data, methodology, and contact information.

Click a table header 

to sort the list by the 

specific topic.
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Jeffrey R. Mistarz, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Electric City Corp.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) 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 mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’sauditors and the Audit Committee of the Registrant’s Board of Directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls overfinancial reporting.   /s/ Jeffrey R. Mistarz     Jeffrey R. Mistarz  Chief Financial Officer  August 15, 2005  
- 34 -
*DLM 4000.25, Volume 1, April 09, 2022*

*Change 10*

# AP4. APPENDIX 4

# DoD/ASC X12 CONVERSION GUIDE

AP4.1.  Three sets of conversion guides contain cross references between DoD domain codes (data item codes) and Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) X12 domain code values.  DoD systems that store internal data in DoD format and exchange data in X12-based DLMS format must implement all three conversion guides to convert outbound DoD data values to the corresponding ASC X12 code values and vice versa for inbound data values.  The applicable conversion guides are available under the quick links on the Defense Enterprise Data Standards Office Website. 

AP4-1	APPENDIX 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         364,170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,504,075
<ALLOWANCES>                                    92,963
<INVENTORY>                                  6,611,578
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,975,039
<PP&E>                                      13,747,912
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,160,996
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,726,628
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,009,664
<BONDS>                                      6,784,753
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,867,529
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,064,682
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,726,628
<SALES>                                     22,903,712
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,903,712
<CGS>                                       15,756,438
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,587,108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,153,364
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             370,417
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,792,823
<INCOME-TAX>                                   558,851
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,233,972
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,233,972
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44


</TABLE>
# C_2015118EN.01001101.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-48/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Directive 2013/51/Euratom - Choice of legal basis - EAEC Treaty - Articles 31 EA and 32 EA - FEU Treaty - Article 192(1) TFEU - Protecting human health - Radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption - Legal certainty - Sincere cooperation among the institutions))

(2015/C 118/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: O. Segnana and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and E. Ruffer, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and D. Colas and by N. Rouam, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

| 3) | Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic and the Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic and the Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

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

     Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Executive
Officer of Federal Mortgage Corporation of Puerto Rico, Inc., that, to his
knowledge, the Annual Report of the company on Form 10-KSB for the period
ended March 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
company's financial condition and results of operations.


June 23, 2004


/s/ Peter Porath
Peter Porath
President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 10-494.

#### Lawrence Litten, et al., Petitioners v. Grenada County, Mississippi, et al.

562 U.S. 1178, 131 S. Ct. 1001,

178 L. Ed. 2d 826,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 815.

January 18, 2011.

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

*827Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 487.