alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT KENDALL L. HOLLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 96-1169 TOGO D. WEST, JR., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge; Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1242-A) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 15, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Kendall L. Holley, Appellant Pro Se. Jeri Kaylene Somers, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM:Kendall L. Holley appeals from the district court's decision granting summary judgment to Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary of the Army,in Appellant's retaliation action, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (1994). Finding no error, we affirm. Appellant claimed Appellee gave her a low performance evaluation in retaliation for the asthma-related complaint she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However, Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973), b ecause she established no causal connection between the low performance evaluation and the EEOC claim. Carter v. Ball , 33 F.3d 450, 460 (4th Cir. 1994); Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc. , 871 F.2d 452, 457 (4th Cir. 1989). Appellant received several similar evaluations prior to her EEOC claim and her conclusory allegations of a connection are insufficient to survive summary judgment. Further, even if she did establish a prima facie case, Appellant failed to show that Appellee's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the low performance evaluation was a pretext for retaliation. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks , 509 U.S. 502 (1993). Appellee claimed the low evaluation was due to Appellant's poor performance;Appellant failed to present any evidence that, but for the alleged retaliation, she would have received a better evaluation, as is evidenced by her prior equally low evaluations. Dwyer v. Smith , 867 F.2d 184, 190-91 (4th Cir. 1989). Finally, Appellant also alleged Appellee discriminated against herby placing her on leave restriction, failing to offer her requested training, and excluding a sergeant from the evaluation process. However, Appellant failed to raise these issues in administrative proceedings, thus precluding her from raising them in federal court. See Brown v. General Services Administration , 425 U.S. 820 (1976). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision and deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argu-
2ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3
### §1449. Reservation of right to amend or repeal chapter

The right to alter, amend, or repeal this chapter is expressly reserved.

(July 22, 1932, ch. 522, §30, 47 Stat. 741.)
ReplyTo: KATHRYN K. MCCORD E. 1.du Pont de Nemours and Company Vice President, Risk Management 1007 Market Street Wilmington, DE 19898 Telephone: 302.999.5303 Facsimile: 302.999.3404 Email: Kathryn-Kamins.mccord@usa.dupont.com

October 30, 2009 PUBLIC COPY NO CBI

VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) EPA East Building, Room 6428 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 564-8930 Attention: Docket IDNumber EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0621 Dear Sir/Madam: 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Prof!ram Report Please find enclosed, in both paper copy and on CD, the DuPont Year 2008 Report (public version) for the 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program. An index ofdocuments is attached to this letter. We look forward to further dialogue with respect to ongoing reporting to best meet the Program objectives. Sincerely,



# ~r 1/. 7Jf~,t/ Kathryn K. McCord 

### AttachmentandEnclosure(paperandCD)
#### STATE v. GANDY

No. 144P90

Case below: 98 N.C.App. 155

Petition by defendant for temporary stay allowed 20 April 1990 conditioned upon secured appearance bond remaining in full force and effect.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

77-174 

December 23, 1977 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4062 Liability of Employer in Single Employer Plans 

OPINION: 

 In accordance with your recommendation to * * * of this Office, this is to notify your firm, as general counsel to

* * * now liquidating, of the estimated claim of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") arising out of

the termination by * * * of * * * (the "Plan"). 

Section 4062 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1362 (Supp. V,

1975), provides that an employer maintaining a pension plan covered by the termination insurance provisions of ERISA

shall be liable to the PBGC in an amount equal to the excess of the current value of the plan's benefits guaranteed by the

PBGC on the date of plan termination over the current value of plan assets allocable to those b enefits on that date

("employer liability"). However, Section 4062 limits employer liability to 30 percent of the net worth of the employer

as of the date of plan termination or on any day chosen by the PBGC within 120 days preceding plan termination. 

The PBGC has estimated the plan asset insufficiency pursuant to Section 4062 to be * * * However, no net worth

valuation has been made by the PBGC as yet, and, since you [*2] suspect that the PBGC estimated plan asset

insufficiency exceeds 30 percent of the net worth, PBGC valuation personnel will be contacting you shortly for assistance

in gathering necessary valuation information and data. Concurrently, the PBGC will determine the exact amount of plan

asset insufficiency and inform you of any change in the amount as estimated at present. 

 Please assure that the PBGC is added to the list of creditors and provide us with notice of any proceedings in the

liquidation of * * * is the attorney handling this case; any notices or questions you may have may be directed to him at

the address above, or by telephone at * * * 

Thank you for your assistance. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
§ 700.281 Requests for notification of existence of records and for access to records: Appeals. ( a ) *Right of appeal.* If an individual has been notified that he/she is not entitled to notification of whether a system of records contains records pertaining to him or has been denied access, in whole or part, to a requested record that individual may appeal to the Executive Director.
( b ) *Time for appeal.* ( 1 ) An appeal must be received by the Privacy Act Officer no later than twenty (20) days (Saturdays, Sundays and public legal holidays excepted) after the date of the initial decision on a request.
( 2 ) The Executive Director may, for good cause shown, extend the time for submission of an appeal if a written request for additional time is received within twenty (20) days (Saturdays, Sundays and public legal holidays excepted) of the date of the initial decision of the request.
( c ) *Form of appeal.* ( 1 ) An appeal shall be in writing and shall attach copies of the initial request and the decision on the request.
( 2 ) The appeal shall contain a brief statement of the reasons why the appellant believes the decision on the initial request to have been in error.
( 3 ) The appeal shall be addressed to Privacy Act Officer, Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission, Box KK, Flagstaff, Arizona 86002.
( d ) *Action on appeals.* ( 1 ) Appeals from decisions on initial requests made pursuant to §§ 700.273 and 700.277 shall be decided for the Commission by the Executive Director after consultation with the Commission's legal counsel.
( 2 ) The decision on an appeal shall be in writing and shall state the basis for the decision.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2006-N-0237] (formerly 2006N-0061)

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Charging for Investigational Drugs” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                         Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3792,                         *Elizabeth.Berbakos@fda.hhs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75168), the Agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0651. The approval expires on December 31, 2011. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain.*

Dated: February 18, 2011.

Leslie Kux,

Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 2011-4217 Filed 2-24-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-P
[No. 8372.]

#### Denver Dry Goods Company v. Jester.

Husband and *Wife*— Living *Separate*— Susband’s *Liability.*

Where the husband, for the misconduct of the wife, lawfully separates himself from her, he is not chargeable for necessaries furnished her. (291.)

*Error to Denver County Court.*Hon. WILLIAM C. Hood, Jr., Judge.

Mr. Everett Owens, Mr. George B. Struby, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. McKnight *&*Henry, Mr. C. A. Ferguson, for defendant in error.

White, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The question involved in this action is whether the Denver Dry Goods Company, plaintiff in error, may recover of M. H. Jester, the defendant in error, the value of certain goods which it sold to his wife, without his knowledge or consent, and while the Jesters were living separate and apart. Plaintiff in error claims that when the goods were sold the Jesters were living apart by mutual consent, and that such goods were necessaries within the meaning of the law, and that the husband had failed to supply his wife with the same, or make any provision for her support. The defendant in error contends that the goods were not necessaries, and that the living apart was not by mutual consent, but because the wife was guilty of violation of her marital *291duties and obligations, entitling the husband to a divorce, and for which he was, at the time the goods were sold, prosecuting a cause of action, which subsequently resulted in a decree in his favor. As the Jesters were not living together as a family in fact, at the time the goods were sold, it is conceded that the statute, — §3021 Eev. Stat. 1908, — relative to family expenses has no application. *Gilman v. Matthews, et al.,*20 Colo. App. 170, 179, 77 Pac. 376. This is also true as to the statute on the subject of alimony, etc., and the power of the courts in that regard. The controversy is, therefore, controlled by the principles of the common law. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment entered in favor of defendant in error. Neither special findings of fact nor declarations of law were made, and an examination of the evidence fails to show that the court had an erroneous conception of the law or that the judgment is wrong. On the contrary, there is a fair *quantum*of proper evidence to warrant the conclusion that Mrs. Jester was guilty of offenses against the marital relation that entitled her husband to a divorce, and that this was the effective cause of their living apart when the goods in question were purchased. The duties of the wife, as wife, form the consideration for the husband’s liability for her maintenance. If she is guilty of offenses against the marital relation that entitles her husband to a divorce, and by reason thereof they do not live together, her contracts for necessaries will not bind the unoffending *husband.*— Sawyer *v. Richards,*65 N. H. 185, 23 Atl. 153; *Cromwell v. Benjamin,*41 Barb. 558; *Brown v. Mudgett,*40 Vt. 68, 21 Cyc., p. 1223.

The burden is upon plaintiff in error to show reversible error, and having failed in that regard, the judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Gabbert, C. J., and Bailey, J., concur.
-  Home 
-  Legislative Mandates 

# In This Section

                      -  PIPES Act of 2020 
                      -  PIPES Act of 2016 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Safety Improvement Act of 2012 
                      -  Pipeline Safety Act of 2011 
                      -  The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act 
                      -  Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) / Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) 

## Contact Us

Office of Governmental, International, and Public Affairs
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**phmsa.publicaffairs@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-4831****Fax:**202-366-7431**

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Mandates Overview

PHMSA's mission to ensure the safe and secure movement of hazardous materials to industry and consumers by all transportation modes, including the nation's pipelines. We recognize that our mission cannot be accomplished in isolation. PHMSA is committed to working with all stakeholders to find opportunities for improvements in the safe transportation of hazardous materials.
#### § 256.12 Who administers the program?

The HIP is administered by a servicing housing office operated by either a tribe (under a Pub. L. 93-638 contract or a self-governance annual funding agreement) or BIA.
§ 273.133 What is the process for review and decision? Upon receiving a contract proposal, the approving official will: ( a ) Notify the applicant in writing that the contract proposal has been received, within 14 days after receiving the contract proposal.
( b ) Review the contract proposal for completeness and request, within 20 days after receiving the contract proposal, any additional information from the applicant which will be needed to reach a decision.
( c ) On receiving the contract proposal for operational support, make a formal written determination and findings supporting the need for such funds. In arriving at such a determination, the approving official must be assured that each local education agency has made a good faith effort in computing State and local contributions without regard to funds requested.
( d ) Assess the completed contract proposal to determine if the proposal is feasible and if the proposal complies with the appropriate requirements of the Johnson-O'Malley Act and this part.
( e ) Approve or disapprove the contract proposal after fully reviewing and assessing the application and any additional information submitted by the applicant.
( f ) Promptly notify the applicant in writing of the decision to approve or disapprove the contract proposal.
( g ) If the contract proposal is disapproved, the notice will give the reasons for disapproval and the applicant's right to appeal pursuant to subpart K of this part.
§ 309.19 What are examples of pottery and ceramics that are Indian products? ( a ) Pottery, ceramics, and related arts and crafts items made or significantly decorated by an Indian, including, but not limited to, a broad spectrum of clays and ceramic material, are Indian products.
( b ) Specific examples include, but are not limited to: ollas, pitch vessels, pipes, raku bowls, pitchers, canteens, effigy pots, wedding vases, micaceous bean pots, seed pots, masks, incised bowls, blackware plates, redware bowls, polychrome vases, and storytellers and other figures.
[68 FR 35170, June 12, 2003]
#### § 256.28 I have a mobile home; am I eligible for help?

Yes. If you meet the eligibility criteria in § 256.6 and funding is available, you can receive any of the HIP services identified in § 256.7. If you request Category B services and your mobile home has exterior walls less than three inches thick, you must be considered for Category C services.
# C_2006310EN.01002801.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/28

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Self Service Station Borne v Commission

(Case T-274/99) (1)

1

(2006/C 310/52)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.

1

---
S. 1030

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

An Act

To provide that the conveyance by the Bureau of Land Management of the surface

estate to certain land in the State of Wyoming in exchange for certain private

land will not result in the removal of the land from operation of the mining

laws.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 60 BAR LAND EXCHANGE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Sections 2201.1–2(d) and 2091.3–2(c) of title

43, Code of Federal Regulations, shall not apply in the case of

the conveyance by the Secretary of the Interior of the land described

in subsection (b) in exchange for approximately 9,480 acres of

land in Campbell County, Wyoming, pursuant to the terms of

the Cow Creek/60 Bar land exchange, WYW–143315.

(b) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The land described in this subsection

comprises the following land in Campbell and Johnson Counties,

Wyoming:

(1) Approximately 2,960 acres of land in the tract known

as the ‘‘Bill Barlow Ranch’’.

(2) Approximately 2,315 acres of land in the tract known

as the ‘‘T-Chair Ranch’’.

(3) Approximately 3,948 acres of land in the tract known

as the ‘‘Bob Christensen Ranch’’.

(4) Approximately 11,609 acres of land in the tract known

as the ‘‘John Christensen Ranch’’.

(c) SEGREGATION FROM ENTRY.—Land acquired by the United

States in the exchange under subsection (a) shall be segregated
S. 1030—2

from entry under the mining laws until appropriate land use planning is completed for the land.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
In addition, grantingthis present amendment will furtherthe public interest by allowing Sensurion, Inc. to safely, efficiently and economically use the Sensurion MP-Tfor crew training and operational development. The enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned system with the specifications described in this amendment, carrying no passengers orcrew, ratherthan a manned aircraft ofsignificantly greater proportions, in additional to flammable fuel, gives the FASA good cause to find that the additional UAS capabilities and operation enabled bythis amendment is indeed in the public interest.
As the FAA has noted in the original exemption, this amendment is not precedent setting, that good cause exists for not publishing asummaryofthe petition in the Federal Register and that any delay in acting on the amendmentwould be detrimentalto the organization.
Thank You foryourtime in regards to this petition and please direct any correspondence to me.

Captain David E. B. Strohm Director of Operations Sensurion Inc., d.b.a. Sensurion Aerospace david.strohm@sensurion.com Cc: Mr. Joe Burns Mr. Dan Johnson Mr. Brian Haynes Mr. Mike Haynes Attachment: Original Exemption No. 13522 Docket No. FAA-2015-3542
# C_2006326EN.01001001.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos — Greece) — G. Agorastoudis v Goodyear Hellas AVEE

(Joined Cases C-187/05 to C-190/05) (1)

1

(Collective redundancies - Directive 75/129/EEC - Article 1(2)(d) - Termination of an establishment's activities as a result of a judicial decision - Termination of an establishment's activities of the employer's own volition)

(2006/C 326/20)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Arios Pagos (Greece)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Georgios Agorastoudis and Others (C-187/05), Ioannis Panou and Others (C-188/05), Kostantinos Kotsampougioukis and Others (C-189/05), Georgios Akritopoulos and Others (C-190/05)

Applicants:

Defendant: Goodyear Hellas AVEE

Defendant:

Intervening parties: Geniki Sinomospondia Ergaton Elladas (GSEE), Ergatoipalliliko Kentro Thessalonikis (C-187/05 and C-189/05)

Intervening parties:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arios Pagos — Interpretation of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC of 17 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1975 L 48, p. 29) — Inapplicability of the directive to workers affected by the termination of an establishment's activities where that is the result of a judicial decision — Meaning

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 75/129/EEC of 17 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as being applicable in the case of collective redundancies that result from the definitive termination of the operation of an undertaking or establishment which has been decided on by the employer of his own accord without a prior judicial decision, and the exception laid down in Article 1(2)(d) of that directive cannot preclude its application.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 09.07.2005.

1

---