alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY 

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE 

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498 

 OFFICE OF 

 AIR AND RADIATION 

August 22, 2012 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Incorporation of NHTSA Docket 

FROM: Robin Moran, Senior Policy Advisor 

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799 

Because this rulemaking was conducted jointly by the EPA and the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), EPA is hereby incorporating by reference the docket 

compiled by NHTSA for its model year 2017-2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards 

for light duty motor vehicles (Docket # NHTSA 2010-0131), where not already included in 

EPA’s docket.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-13-00518-CV

____________________

PILGRIM’S PRIDE CORPORATION, Appellant

V.

JUDY MANSFIELD, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 128th District Court 

Orange County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A-100613-C 

________________________________________________________ _____________

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION 

On February 26, 2015, we issued our original opinion in this case, 

conditionally affirming the trial court’s judgment and suggesting a remittitur of 

$30,000.00 from the final judgment issued by the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 

46.3. We further provided that if the appellee, Judy Mansfield, filed a remittitur 

within fifteen days from the date of our opinion, we would reform the trial court’s 

judgment to reflect the award of $20,000 in future medical damages and affirm the 

judgment as reformed. 
2

On February 26, 2015, the appellee filed a remittitur with the Clerk of the 

Court, stating that she desires to accept the suggested remittitur and asking that the 

trial court’s judgment be affirmed as reformed. We therefore issue this 

supplemental opinion, and in accordance with our original opinion and the 

appellee’s timely-filed remittitur, we reform the trial court’s judgment by reducing 

the amount of the damages thereby awarded by $30,000, as of the date the trial 

court rendered its judgment. We reform the penultimate paragraph of the trial 

court’s final judgment so that it states as follows:

It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that 

Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Judy Mansfield and against 

Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation in the amount of $502,321.87 (Five 

Hundred Two Thousand, Three Hundred Twenty-One Dollars, and 

Eighty-Seven Cents), which sum will bear post-judgment interest at a 

rate of 5.00% per annum until paid, for which let execution issue. 

Finally, given the appellee’s decision to accept the Court’s suggested 

remittitur, the trial court’s judgment, as reformed, is affirmed. Our original opinion 

remains otherwise in effect.

AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.

 ________________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

Supplemental Opinion Delivered March 5, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.249 What happens if the contractor fails to take corrective action to remedy the contract deficiencies identified in the notice?

The Secretary shall provide a second written notice by certified mail to the Indian tribes or tribal organizations served by the contract and the contractor that the contract will be rescinded, in whole or in part.
###### Editorial Note on Part 113

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 113 appear at 79 FR 55969, Sept. 18, 2014.

#### § 113.106 Clostridium Chauvoei Bacterin.

Clostridium Chauvoei Bacterin shall be produced from a culture of *Clostridium chauvoei* which has been inactivated and is nontoxic. Each serial of biological product containing *Clostridium chauvoei* fraction shall meet the applicable requirements in § 113.100 and shall be tested for purity, safety, and potency as prescribed in this section. Serials found unsatisfactory by any prescribed test shall not be released.

(a) *Purity test.* Final container samples of completed product from each serial and each subserial shall be tested for viable bacteria and fungi as provided in § 113.26.

(b) *Safety test.* Bulk or final container samples of completed product from each serial shall be tested for safety as provided in § 113.38.

(c) *Potency test.* Bulk or final container samples of completed product from each serial shall be tested for potency using the two-stage test provided in this paragraph.

(1) Each of at least 8 but not more than 10 guinea pigs, each weighing 300 to 500 grams, shall be injected subcutaneously with a guinea pig dose. A second guinea pig dose shall be injected 21 to 23 days after the first dose. Each guinea pig dose shall be one-fifth of the dose recommended on the label for a calf.

(2) *Clostridium chauvoei* challenge material, available upon request from Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, shall be used for challenge 14 to 15 days following the last injection of the product. Each of eight vaccinates and each of five additional nonvaccinated guinea pigs for controls shall be injected intramuscularly with approximately 100 LD50 of challenge material. This dose shall be determined by statistical analysis of results of titrations of the challenge material. The vaccinates and controls shall be observed for 3 days postchallenge and all deaths recorded.

(3) For a valid test, at least 80 percent of the controls shall die within the 3 day post-challenge observation period. If this requirement is met, the results of the potency test shall be evaluated according to the following table:

| Stage | Number of vaccinates | Cumulative number of vaccinates | Cumulative total number of deaths for a satisfactory test | Cumulative total number of deaths for an unsatisfactory test |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 8 | 8 | 1 or less | 3 or more. |
| 2 | 8 | 16 | 4 or less | 5 or more. |

The second stage shall be required only when exactly two animals die in the first stage. The second stage shall be conducted in a manner identical to the first stage.

[39 FR 16862, May 10, 1974, as amended at 45 FR 40100, June 13, 1980. Redesignated at 55 FR 35562, Aug. 31, 1990 and amended at 56 FR 66784, 66785, Dec. 26, 1991]
Exhibit
      12.2

Certification
      of Chief Financial Officer

I, Marcelo
    Gustavo Canestri, certify that:

1. I have
    reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of BBVA Banco Francés S.A.;

2. Based
    on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untrue statement
    of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
    statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
    were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Annual
    Report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the Financial Statements, and other financial
  information included in this Annual Report, fairly present in all material
  respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
  the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;

4. The
    registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
    and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
    Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed
    such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls and procedures
    to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
    relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
    known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
    in which this Annual Report is being prepared;

b) [Reserved];

c) evaluated
    the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
    and presented in this Annual Report our conclusions about the effectiveness
    of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
    by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) disclosed
    in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
    financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the Annual
    Report 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 most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
    to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
    board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all
    significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
    of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
    to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize
    and report financial information; and

b) any
    fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
    who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over
    financial reporting.

Date:
    June 29, 2006

/s/
          Marcelo Gustavo CanestriTitle:
          Chief Financial Officer


---
### §4223. Confidentiality of declarations

#### (a) Period of confidentiality

A declarant and the declarant's agents shall not disclose the existence or filing of a declaration filed pursuant to section 4221 of this title until:

(1) the declarant receives notice that the Attorney General has concluded that an action should not be pursued under section 4226(b) of this title;

(2) the declarant receives notice of an award pursuant to section 4226(c) of this title; or

(3) the declarant is granted a contract to pursue an action under section 4225(b) or 4227 of this title.

#### (b) Maintenance of confidentiality to prevent prejudice

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the contents of a declaration shall not be disclosed by the declarant if the disclosure would prejudice or compromise in any way the completion of any government investigation or any criminal or civil case that may arise out of, or make use of, information contained in a declaration, but information contained in a declaration may be disclosed as required by duly issued and authorized legal process.

(2) The Attorney General may in a circumstance described in paragraph (1) notify a declarant that continued confidentiality is required under this subsection notwithstanding paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a).

#### (c) Loss of rights

A declarant who discloses, except as provided by this subchapter, the existence or filing of a declaration or the contents thereof to anyone other than a duly authorized Federal or State investigator or the declarant's attorney shall immediately lose all rights under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 101–647, title XXV, §2578, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4900.)
#### § 115.133 [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SISIR CHATTOPADHYAY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.  No. 02-1943 TOMMY G. THOMPSON, SECRETARY,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge.

(CA-99-388-WNM)

Submitted: January 30, 2003

Decided: February 6, 2003

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Gary T. Brown, GARY T. BROWN & ASSOCIATES, Washington,

D.C., for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney,

Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Sisir Chattopadhyay appeals from the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the Employer and dismissing his employment discrimination action based upon national origin for failure to

timely exhaust administrative remedies and denying his motion for

reconsideration. Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment and views the facts in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party. Providence Square Assocs., L.L.C. v. G.D.F., Inc.,

211 F.3d 846, 850 (4th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate

when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Summary judgment will be granted unless a reasonable jury could

return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). 

A federal employee is required to timely exhaust his administrative

remedies by initiating contact with an EEO counselor within fortyfive days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory, or of

the effective date of the alleged discriminatory personnel action. 29

C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) (2001); Jakubiak v. Perry, 101 F.3d 23, 26-

27 (4th Cir. 1996) (federal employee must notify EEO counselor

within 45 days of discriminatory incident). The time limit may be

extended if the complainant shows that he was not notified or aware

of the time limits. 29 C.F.R. § 1613.214(a)(4) (2001). 

Courts strictly adhere to time limits and rarely allow equitable tolling of limitations periods. See Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498

U.S. 89, 95-96 (1990). After a review of the record, we conclude that

Chattopadhyay had constructive notice of the EEO filing requirements. See Nealon v. Stone, 958 F.2d 584, 589-90 (4th Cir. 1992);

Zografov v. V.A. Medical Ctr., 779 F.2d 967, 968-70 (4th Cir. 1985).

2 CHATTOPADHYAY v. THOMPSON
We therefore affirm the judgment order and order denying the

motion for reconsideration. We deny Appellant’s motion for 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. 

AFFIRMED

CHATTOPADHYAY v. THOMPSON 3
§ 38.10 Conditions of employment of educators. ( a ) *Supervision not delegated to school boards.* School boards may not direct, control, or interrupt the day-to-day activities of BIA employees carrying out Bureau-operated education programs.
( b ) *Employee handbook.* Employee handbook and recruiting guides shall be developed by each local school or agency to provide specific information regarding: ( 1 ) The working and hiring conditions for various tribal jurisdictions and Bureau locations;
( 2 ) The need for all education personnel to adapt to local situations; and
( 3 ) The requirement of all education personnel to comply with and support duly adopted school board policies, including those relating to tribal culture or language.
( c ) *Contract renewal notification.* Employees will be notified 60 calendar days before the end of the school term of the intent to renew or not renew their contract. If an individual's contract is to be renewed, the individual must agree in writing to serve for the next school term. This agreement must be received within 14 calendar days of the date of the notice in order to complete the contract renewal. If this agreement is not received by the fourteenth day, the employee has voluntarily forfeited his or her right to continuing employment. If an individual agrees to serve for the next school term and fails to report for duty at the beginning of the next school term, the contract will be terminated and the individual's future appointment will be subject to the restriction in § 38.7(k) of this part.
( d ) *Dual compensation.* An employee accepting a renewal of a school term contract may be appointed to another Federal position during the school recess period without regard to the dual compensation regulations in 5 U.S.C. 5533.
( e ) *Discrimination complaints.* Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) procedures established under 29 CFR part 1613 are applicable to contract employees under this part. It is the policy of the BIA that all employees and applicants for employment shall be treated equally when considered for employment or benefits of employment, regardless of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or mental or physical health (handicap), within the parameters of Indian preference.
( f ) *Grievance procedures.* The Director shall publish in 62 BIAM procedures for the rapid and equitable resolution of grievances. In locations and for positions covered by an exclusive bargaining agreement, the negotiated grievance procedure is the exclusive avenue of redress for all matters within the scope of the negotiated grievance procedure.
( g ) *Performance evaluation.* The minimum number of times a supervisor shall meet with an employee to discuss performance and suggest improvements shall be once every three months for the educator's first year at a school or Agency, and twice annually thereafter during the school term.
Exhibit 99.1

Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to (b) of section 1350, I hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


|                                                                                    |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|By: /s/ STEPHEN E. BABLITCHStephen E. Bablitch
Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2003 |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cobalt Corporation and will be retained by Cobalt Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
### §28. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–325, title VI, §602(e)(1), Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2291

Section, R.S. §5170, required publication of certificate of authority to commence banking for 60 days after issuance.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §5170 derived from act June 3, 1864, ch. 106, §18, 13 Stat. 104, which was the National Bank Act. See section 38 of this title.
### §4804. Elimination of duplicative filings

The Federal banking agencies shall work jointly—

(1) to eliminate, to the extent practicable, duplicative or otherwise unnecessary requests for information in connection with applications or notices to the agencies; and

(2) to harmonize, to the extent practicable, any inconsistent publication and public notice requirements.

(Pub. L. 103–325, title III, §304, Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2215.)
| Subsidiary                                                           | Jurisdiction of      Incorporation | Principal      Activity                         |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                 |                               |                                            |
| Atuel      Fideicomisos S.A. and subsidiary (1)                 | Republic      of Argentina         | Trust      services                             |
| Francés      Valores Sociedad de Bolsa S.A.                | Republic      of Argentina         | Stock      exchange brokerage                   |
| Consolidar      Cía. de Seguros de Retiro S.A.             | Republic      of Argentina         | Insurance                                       |
| Consolidar      AFJP S.A. (undergoing liquidation proceedings)  | Republic      of Argentina         | Pension      and Retirement Fund Administrators |
| PSA      Compañía Financiera S.A.                     | Republic      of Argentina         | Financial      Institution                      |
| Rombo      Compañía Financiera S.A.                   | Republic      of Argentina         | Financial      Institution                      |
| Consolidar      ART S.A.                                        | Republic      of Argentina         | Workers      Compensation Insurance        |
| BBVA      Consolidar Seguros S.A.                               | Republic      of Argentina         | Insurance      Company                          |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF EMILY § 

IRWIN, a Disabled Person.1 § No. 326, 2018

§

§ Court Below: Court of Chancery of 

§ the State of Delaware

§

§ CM 16855-N

§

Submitted: July 6, 2018

Decided: July 13, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices.

O R D E R

(1) Ronald J. Schmidt filed a notice of appeal purporting to appeal the 

Court of Chancery’s alleged failure to issue a decision on a motion to dismiss filed 

by Schmidt on May 7, 2018, in a guardianship proceeding.2 The Clerk issued a 

notice directing Schmidt to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for

failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an 

apparent interlocutory order. In his response to the notice to show cause, Schmidt

states that any defects in the notice of appeal are due to his inexperience as a pro se

litigant.

 

1 The Court has assigned a pseudonym under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).

2

See Docket at 174, In re [Irwin], Del. Ch., CM 16855-N, Transaction ID 62000117 (May 7, 2018) 

(“letter submission with various exhibits submitted by Ronald Schmidt requesting that guardian 

be removed”). 
2

(2) Schmidt’s appeal, on its face, manifestly fails to invoke the appellate 

jurisdiction of this Court and is subject to dismissal, sua sponte, under Supreme 

Court Rule 29(c). The Court’s appellate jurisdiction in Court of Chancery cases is 

limited “interlocutory or final decrees” issued by the court.3 In this case, no decree, 

either interlocutory or final, was entered in the Court of Chancery, which would 

permit Schmidt to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED 

under Supreme Court Rule 29(c). 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice

 

3 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(4).