alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013325EN.01004902.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/49

---

Appeal brought on 19 September 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 July 2013 in Case F-32/12 Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-503/13 P)

2013/C 325/79

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

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

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

| — | set aside in its entirety and without exception the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 12 July 2013 in Case F-32/12 Marcuccio v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in its entirety and without exception the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 12 July 2013 in Case F-32/12 Marcuccio v Commission;

Marcuccio

Commission

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

—

refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds in support of his appeal.

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging that Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal is unlawful by reason of tautology and unreasonableness and that there has, in any event, been mistaken, erroneous, misleading and unreasonable interpretation and application of that article, resulting in a serious and manifest infringement of the legally binding principle of natural justice referred to in, inter alia, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging that Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal is unlawful by reason of tautology and unreasonableness and that there has, in any event, been mistaken, erroneous, misleading and unreasonable interpretation and application of that article, resulting in a serious and manifest infringement of the legally binding principle of natural justice referred to in, inter alia, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging a total failure to provide reasons by virtue of, inter alia, a failure to make preliminary inquiries, self-evident, tautologous and arbitrary reasoning, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, error of law and a manifestly misleading assessment of a procedural fact. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging a total failure to provide reasons by virtue of, inter alia, a failure to make preliminary inquiries, self-evident, tautologous and arbitrary reasoning, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, error of law and a manifestly misleading assessment of a procedural fact.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,281
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,233
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,715
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         503,158
<DEPRECIATION>                                 184,243
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 457,896
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,410
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   457,896
<SALES>                                         37,216
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               255,505
<CGS>                                           36,848
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  191,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,820
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,476
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,344
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,344
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.29
        

</TABLE>
******USE******

OFFICIAL DoD SERVICE LETTERHEAD

Sample Only

DODAAC DATE

Subject: Appointment Letter for Material Potentially Presenting an Explosive Hazard (MPPEH)Certifier

And Verifierto declareMaterial Documented as Safe (MDAS)

Authority: DODM 4140.72 Management of Material Potentially Presenting an Explosive Hazard, 

DODM 4160.28 Defense Demilitarization Manual

The individuals below are appointed to act as MPPEH Certifier and Verifier for NAME OF YOUR 

ACTIVITY to include all units within the command of this office. Include Individual's name, 

qualifications, limitations, and types of material individual may document. The appointments will be 

valid until amended. DoDAACS:

1. MDAS Inspection Certifier: The individuals are technically qualified DoD employee's or a DoD contractor 

designated by the responsible commander to certify the inspection of MPPEH material and related items for the 

purpose of DLA Disposition Services MDAS certifications.

Name Signature Grade/Rank

2. MDAS Inspection Verifier: The individual's are technically qualified U.S citizens and either a DoD Employee 

or DoD Contractor designated by the responsible commander to verify the inspection of MPPEH material and 

related items for the purpose of DLA Disposition Services site MDAS Certifications.

Name Signature Grade/Rank

3. In performance of this duty, personnel will attach a signed certification of MDAS as part of the 

turn-in documentation. The following statement must be on the MDAS certification:

The Certification Statement, “The material listed on thisform has been inspected, processed by Department of 

Defense Explosive Safety Board (DDESB)-approved means, or undergone the application of expert knowledge, 

in compliance with DoD policy, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, does not pose an explosive 

hazard”.

Appointing Official

Signature: 

Title: 

Date:
No. 10-10990.

#### Norris Rogers, Petitioner v. Ray Lawler, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, et al.

565 U.S. 861, 132 S. Ct. 199,

181 L. Ed. 2d 105,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6376.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
## APPENDIX B URBAN BUS SURVEYB-1 Urban Bus Survey - Alternate Fuel Experience Transit Agency:__________________ ___________________Date_________ Interviewer__________

______________________________ As a transit agency on the alternative fuel path, we would like to ask you a few questions regarding the use of al ternate fuels in your fleet. 1 What type of fuels are you using? Diesel LNG Propane CNG Gasoline Hybrid Other:________ 2. What is the relative cost of the alte rnative fuel buses, compared to diesel buses (you can state the actual cost of the buses)? 3 Have you installed a fueling st ation? How much did it cost? 4. What other modifications were made to your facility in order to use the alternative fuel (changes due to space requirements or handling lighter than air fuels)? At what cost? 5. Which staff did you need to train and whattype of training was required? At what cost or how much time (training may have been provided by the fuel provider)? 6. What has your overall experience bee n with the alternative fueled vehicles compared to diesel fuel? Routine maintenance: Breakdowns/Reliability: Durability (how long the engine last s before overhaul), longevity of bus: Fuel use and storage:B-2 Manufacturer Support: Urban Bus Survey - Alternate Fuel Experience Transit Agency:_________

_________________ ___________ 7. What are the costs compared to diesel? Routine maintenance (annual hours/bus or $/year/bus): Costs related to reliability (increased spare ratio?): Repowering or remanufacturing engi nes (engine components labor): Fuel costs (per mile):
Have you received any waivers from SCAQMD to purchase diesel fuel buses? What was the reason? Have any requests for waivers been denied? (details). 8. Is there a specific r eason why you chose the specificalternate fuel over others? Is there anything else you would like to share regarding the exper ience with alternate fuel?
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 95-5375.

Non-Argument Calendar.

Theodore WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

Harry K. SINGLETARY, Respondent-Appellee.

July 29, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 91-8542-CVNCR), Norman C. Roettger, Jr., Judge.

Before ANDERSON, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

PER CURIAM.

As no member of this panel, nor any other judge in regular active service on this Court, has

requested that this Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Fed.R.App.P.; 11th Cir. Rule 35-

5), the suggestion of rehearing en banc is DENIED. However, the panel modifies its original panel

opinion, published at 114 F.3d 177 (11th Cir.1997), into two respects. First, we delete the second

paragraph before the conclusion (which begins "The error in Williams' reasoning ..."). Second, we

add the following paragraph to our discussion.

Williams argues for the first time on rehearing that the Smith v. Kelso, 863 F.2d 1564 (11th

Cir.1989), four-step analysis for determining whether a defendant's non-severed trial was

fundamentally unfair has been supplanted by the decision in Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534,

113 S.Ct. 933, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). Williams asserts that Zafiro sets forth a new standard for

determining when a refusal to sever rises to the level of prejudicial error, and that standard is to be

applied by federal courts reviewing state court judgments in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings.

However, Zafiro was not a habeas case. Instead, it involved a direct appeal of a federal criminal

conviction in which the Supreme Court examined Rule 14, Fed.R.Crim.P., and established a

standard for determining when that rule requires severance. See id. at 539, 113 S.Ct. at 938. Of
course, Rule 14 does not apply to state courts, and it is not at all clear that Zafiro establishes a rule

of constitutional law to be applied to state court judgments in § 2254 proceedings. We have no need

to decide that issue in the present case, because Williams never made that argument in the district

court; instead, he based his argument there upon the Smith standard. Nor did he make such an

argument in this Court before we issued our decision.
No. 11-5259.

#### Jessie C. Hawkins, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 897, 132 S. Ct. 288,

181 L. Ed. 2d 173,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5738.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 11-5329.

#### Ty Erik Lopes, Petitioner v. Roseanne Campbell, Warden, et al.

565 U.S. 901, 132 S. Ct. 297,

181 L. Ed. 2d 180,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5714.

October 3, 2011.

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

*181Same case below, 408 Fed. Appx. 13.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Unaudited Balance Sheet and Statement of Income for the period ended March 31,
1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                         <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                 1,786,412
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                              6,396
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,792,808
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         1,792,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    116,920
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                             1,675,888<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           1,792,808
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          20,198<F2>
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             23,603<F3>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           1,713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (5,118)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (5,118)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             (5,118)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (.001)
<FN>
<F1> Includes $1,667,492 of paid-in-capital and $8,396 of retained earnings.
<F2> Includes only interest income.
<F3> Includes manager, accounting, legal, and transfer agent and settlement 
     administration fees.
</FN>
         

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 39084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19341]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-352-000]


MIGC, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

July 15, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 10, 1998, MIGC, Inc. (MIGC) tendered for 
filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the 
following tariff sheets to be effective August 1, 1998:

Third Revised Sheet No. 51
Third Revised Sheet No. 52
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 56
Third Revised Sheet No. 57
Third Revised Sheet No. 64
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 65
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 66
Third Revised Sheet No. 76
Third Revised Sheet No. 84
Third Revised Sheet No. 85
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 90
Second Revised Sheet No. 90A

    MIGC states that the purpose of this filing is to conform MIGC's 
First Revised Volume No. 1 tariff to the requirements of Order No. 587-
G that interstate pipelines transporting pursuant to Section 284.223 of 
the Commission's regulations conform their tariff to include Version 
1.2 of the GISB standards.
    MIGC states that copies of the filing were served on its customers 
and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-19341 Filed 7-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON

WASHINGTON, DC  20301-3000

           LOGISTICS AND

    MATERIEL READINESS 

DLM 4000.25-4, April 29, 2016

Change 2

DEFENSE AUTOMATIC ADDRESSING SYSTEM

		CHANGE 2	

I.  This change to DLM 4000.25-4, Defense Automatic Addressing System (DAAS), June 2012, is published by direction of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Supply Chain Integration under the authority of DoD Instruction (DoDI) 4140.01, “DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Policy,” December 14, 2011.  Unless otherwise noted, revised text in the manual is identified by***bold, italicized***print.  The exception would be when the entire chapter or appendix is replaced, or a new one added.  Change 2 also includes administrative updates:  The title of DoDM 4140.1-R is updated to DoDM 4140.01.   In accordance with new direction for issuances, “shall” has been replaced by “will”, “must”, or other appropriate words or phrases throughout the updated documents.  In accordance with DLA General Order No. 07-15 (09/14/2015), references to “DLA Transaction Services” are changed to “Transaction Services”, and “DLA Logistics Information Services” to “Logistics Information Services.

II. This change includes Approved Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) Changes (ADC) published by Defense Logistics Management Standards Office memorandum:

1.   ADC 1177 dated December 8, 2015.  Documents the interim state routing solution that has been developed and tested by the Defense Security Assistance Development Center (DSADC) for the SCES Program, working in cooperation with Naval Supply Systems Command, Weapon System Support (NAVSUP WSS), DLMSO, and Transaction Services.

1.   ADC 1178 dated August 5, 2015, Revises DoDAAD Bureau Codes (DoDAAD); no changes to DLM manuals.  

III.  The list below identifies the chapters, appendices, or other files from the manual that are updated by this change:

IV.  This change is incorporated into the on-line Defense Logistics Management Standards  manual at the Defense Logistics Managements Standards Office Website www.dlmso.dla.mil/elibrary/manuals/dlm/dlm_pubs.asp, and the PDF file containing the entire set of change files is available atwww.dlmso.dla.mil/eLibrary/Manuals/DLMS/formal_changes.asp.

# image1.png

# image2.png
No. 11-97.

#### Sara Castle, Petitioner v. Joan Thompson, et al.

565 U.S. 882, 132 S. Ct. 251,

181 L. Ed. 2d 144,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5471.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 631 F.3d 1194.
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17350]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

Deposting of Stockyards

    Notice is hereby given, that the livestock markets named herein, 
originally posted on the dates specified below as being subject to the 
Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), no 
longer comes within the definition of a stockyard under the Act and are 
therefore, no longer subject to the provisions of the Act.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Facility No., name, and location of                                   
               stockyard                         Date of posting        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA-153, Coosa Valley Livestock Market,   May 20, 1959.                  
 Inc., Rome, Georgia.                                                   
UT-117, Parker Sales, Logan, Utah......  June 18, 1992.                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is in the nature of a change relieving a restriction 
and, thus, may be made effective in less than 30 days after publication 
in the Federal Register without prior notice or other public procedure. 
This notice is given pursuant to section 302 of the Packers and 
Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 202) and is effective upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Done at Washington, DC, 22nd day of June 1998.
Daniel L. Van Ackeren,
Director Office of Policy/Litigation Support Packers and Stockyards 
Programs.
[FR Doc. 98-17350 Filed 6-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-EN-P
```
~ 

華語戒煙專線
Adult Screening and Immunization Documentation Form

Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Program 

LAST NAME:_______________________________________________ First Name: _____________________________

Circle Answers to Questions 1- 11

1. Do you currently feel sick or have a fever? Yes No

2. Have you ever had a serious reaction to a flu vaccine (such as hives or anaphylaxis)? Yes No

3. Do you have a history of Guillian-Barre Syndrome (GBS) within 6 weeks of prior Yes No 

influenza vaccination?

4. Do you have an allergy to any to the following: eggs, egg protein, MSG, gentamicin, Yes No

gelatin, arginine, neomycin, polymyxin B, formaldehyde, latex, or other vaccine components?

5. Are you pregnant, breastfeeding, or planning on becoming pregnant in the next 30 days? Yes No

6. Have you had any vaccines within the last 30 days or plan to receive any vaccines in the next Yes No

4 weeks? If so please list: _____________________________________________________

7. Are you over 50 years of age? Yes No

8. Do you have a chronic health problem such as: Asthma, Lung Disease, Heart Disease, Kidney Yes No

Disease, Metabolic Disease (e.g. diabetes), or a blood disorder?

9. Do you have a weakened immune system because of HIV or another disease that affects the Yes No

immune system, long-term high dose steroid treatments, or cancer treatments with radiation drugs?

10. Are you taking PRESCRIPTION medications to prevent or treat influenza? Have you taken any Yes No 

anti-virals within the last 48 hours?

11. Do you live with or have close contact with severely immune-compromised individuals or someone Yes No

who must be in a protective environment (such as transplant recipients)?

 “I have received the Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS) I have also had a chance to ask questions and they were answered to my

satisfaction. I understand the benefits and risks of the influenza vaccine”

Patient Signature: Date:

Interviewer’s Signature: Date: 

Below to be completed by healthcare staff

Influenza Vaccine: Fluzone Intradermal _______Fluzone Intradermal (High Dose)

 Place Label Here: Lot # _____________ Dose: 0.5ml Route: ID Deltoid Left / Right

 ADMINISTERED BY: (PRINT Name and Title) SIGNATURE: DATE ( YYYYMMDD)

 ______________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ 

TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY

 UIC:_____________________________________________ UNIT: _____________________________________

 PHONE NUMBER: _______________________________
No. 11-5586.

#### John A. Champion, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 915, 132 S. Ct. 331,

181 L. Ed. 2d 206,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5918.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.

Same case below, 16 A.3d 975.