alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 5:05 PM

To: tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@LVMetals. com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; gbf1@pge.com; adelaski@standardsASAP.org; rroy@nrdc.org; sn adel@aceee.org; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; john.caskey@nema.org; dave.millure@met glas.com; john.cymb alsky@ee.doe.gov; paul.ryan@hitmet.com; Daniel.Coh en@hq.doe.gov; Robert Berman; Creevy, Jim; Raba, Jim; Brian Coffey; Chris Bolduc; mark.e.stoering@xcel.energy. com; Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR); Caitlin Johnson Subject: Low-Voltage Transformer Negotiated Rulema king: Announcing List of Members and First Meeting (Sept. 28)

Greetings,

Attached are the committee members and alternat es for the low-voltage transformer negotiated rulemaking committee (hereafter "LV Committee") based on the nominations that came in in response to the Federal Register notice. Ther e may be one or two more coming aboard early next week, but this is the list as it stands now. Several comm enters pointed out the need for representation by building associat ions and other consumers of LV transformers. Unfortunately, none of them stepped forward in response to the no tice. We will work to make sure that various "consumer" groups who may not have found it in th eir interest to serve as full-fledged voting members are nonetheless encouraged to attend and pr esent at one or more m eetings so that their perspective is reflected in our deliberations.

The first meeting of this group will be held in DC (DOE ) on Sept. 28 from 9 am to 5 pm. Thereafter the Medium-voltage and low-voltage co mmittees will meet on adjacent dates. We are working on finalizing October dates, still constrained by meeting room availability, but will get those to you as soon as possible.

I look forward to working with you.

Best wishes,

Richard Parker
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1371 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1371

 To issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement 
   for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel OCEAN PRIDE.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 14, 1999

  Mr. Gorton introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement 
   for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel OCEAN PRIDE.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, 
chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 12106 and 12108 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel Ocean Pride, United 
States official number 528790.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 2.53 Use of tags.

Official tags obtained by a dealer, exhibitor, or research facility, shall be applied to dogs or cats in the manner set forth in § 2.50 and in as close to consecutive numerical order as possible. No tag number shall be used to identify more than one animal. No number shall be repeated within a 5-year period.
### §483. Special examination of member banks; information of condition furnished to Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

In addition to the examinations made and conducted by the Comptroller of the Currency, every Federal reserve bank may, with the approval of the Federal reserve agent or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, provide for special examination of member banks within its district. The expense of such examinations may, in the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, be assessed against the banks examined, and, when so assessed, shall be paid by the banks examined. Such examinations shall be so conducted as to inform the Federal reserve bank of the condition of its member banks and of the lines of credit which are being extended by them. Every Federal reserve bank shall at all times furnish to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System such information as may be demanded concerning the condition of any member bank within the district of the said Federal reserve bank.

(R.S. §5240 (par.); Feb. 19, 1875, ch. 89, 18 Stat. 329; Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §21, 38 Stat. 272; June 26, 1930, ch. 611, §2, 46 Stat. 814; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, §203(a), 49 Stat. 704.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §5240 derived from act June 3, 1864, ch. 106, §54, 13 Stat. 116, which was part of the National Bank Act. See section 38 of this title.

Section is comprised of fifth par. of R.S. §5240, as amended. See Codification note set out under section 481 of this title.

#### Amendments

1930—Act June 26, 1930, substituted second sentence "The expense of such examinations may, in the discretion of the Federal Reserve Board, be assessed against the banks examined, and, when so assessed, shall be paid by the banks examined." for "The expense of such examinations shall be borne by the bank examined."

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Section 203(a) of act Aug. 23, 1935, changed name of Federal Reserve Board to Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Exception as to Transfer of Functions

Functions vested by any provision of law in Comptroller of the Currency, referred to in this section, not included in transfer of functions to Secretary of the Treasury, see note set out under section 1 of this title.
#### Sheet Metal Workers’ International Union, Local No. 40 *v.*Capitol Ventilating Company

*Arthur M. Nassau,*for the appellant (defendant).

*J. Daniel Sagarin,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Argued February 5

decided February 5, 1974

It appearing that the defendant in the above-entitled ease has failed to prosecute its appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County, it is, under Practice Book § 696, ordered by the Supreme Court, suo motu, that the case be and hereby is dismissed.
§ 9409.14 Fees. ( a ) *Generally.* The General Counsel may condition the production of records or appearance for testimony upon advance payment of a reasonable estimate of the costs to the Commission.
( b ) *Fees for records.* Requesters will reimburse the Commission for the actual costs of time and resources spent searching, reviewing and duplicating records. Fees for producing records will include fees for searching, reviewing, and duplicating records, costs of attorney time spent in reviewing the demand or request, and expenses generated by materials and equipment used to search for, produce, and copy the responsive information. The Commission will charge fees at the salary rate(s) (basic pay plus 16 percent) of employee time spent searching, reviewing, and duplicating records. Fees for duplication will be the same as those charged by the Commission for records disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (11 CFR 9405), except that the Commission will charge for the actual costs for each page of duplication and will not provide the first 100 pages for free.
( c ) *Witness fees.* Fees for attendance by a witness will include fees, expenses, and allowances prescribed by the court's rules. If no such fees are prescribed, witness fees will be determined based upon the rule of the Federal district court closest to the location where the witness will appear. The fees will include cost of time spent by the witness to prepare for testimony, in travel, and for attendance in the legal proceeding.
( d ) *Payment of fees.* Witness fees shall be paid for current Commission employees and any records certification fees by submitting to the General Counsel a check or money order for the appropriate amount made payable to the Treasury of the United States. In the case of testimony by former Commission employees, applicable fees shall be paid directly to the former employee in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1821 or other applicable statutes.
( e ) *Certification (authentication) of copies of records.* The Commission may certify that records are true copies to facilitate their use as evidence. To obtain certification a request for certified copies shall be made to the Commission at least 45 days before the date the copies will be needed. The request should be sent to the General Counsel, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1335 East-West Highway, Suite 4300, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
( f ) *Waiver or reduction of fees.* The General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, may, upon a showing of reasonable cause, waive or reduce any fees in connection with the testimony, production, or certification of records.
[73 FR 54271, Sept. 18, 2008, as amended at 75 FR 49814, Aug. 16, 2010; 83 FR 53802, Oct. 25, 2018]
# C_2011340EN.01003701.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/37

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-13/10) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Staff of the European Investment Bank - Assessment - Promotion - Action for damages - Admissibility)

2011/C 340/73

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams and F. Martin, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee rejecting the applicant’s appeal against the assessment of his work during 2008 and annulment of the staff report for 2008. Second, an application for an order that the EIB pay compensation for the material and non material damage suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr De Nicola to bear his own costs and to pay half the costs of the European Investment Bank; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr De Nicola to bear his own costs and to pay half the costs of the European Investment Bank;

| 3. | Orders the European Investment Bank to bear half its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Investment Bank to bear half its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134 of 22.05.10, p. 53.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


     Each of the undersigned  hereby  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly  Report of Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending October 3, 2004, fully complies with the requirements
of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material  respects,  the financial  condition and result of operations of
the Company.

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


Dated:  NOVEMBER 3, 2004
        ----------------



                                                  /S/ TIMOTHY T. TEVENS
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                      Timothy T. Tevens
                                                      Chief Executive Officer



                                                  /S/ ROBERT R. FRIEDL
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                      Robert R. Friedl
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
ex10-3.htm


    
      


       

      EXHIBIT
10.3

       

      AMENDMENT
TO THE IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED

       

      2003
SENIOR EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PROGRAM

       

      1.    Section 3
of the Iron Mountain Incorporated 2003 Senior Executive Incentive Program (the
"2003 SEIP") is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:

       

      "3.    
Eligibility for
Incentive Compensation.     While the outcome for the
Corporation's fiscal year to which the incentive compensation relates is
substantially uncertain (but not more than 90 days after the start of that
fiscal year), the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors shall
establish the criteria for the payment of the Annual Limit. Such criteria may be
based on any one or more of the following business criteria: EBITDA; OIBDA;
contribution; gross revenues; growth rate; capital spending; return on invested
capital; free cash flow; operating income; attaining budget; and achievement of
stated corporate goals including, but not limited to acquisitions, alliances,
joint ventures, international development and internal expansion. Any such
criteria shall be adjusted as necessary to reflect acquisitions. If such
objectives are not fully achieved, the Compensation Committee may provide that
less than 100 percent of the Annual Limit shall be payable.

       

      Following the
close of the fiscal year, the Compensation Committee shall certify whether such
criteria were satisfied."

       

      2.    This
amendment will be effective for fiscal years beginning on or after
January 1, 2009; provided, however, that prior to effectiveness this
amendment must first be approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the
votes properly cast at a duly held meeting of the stockholders of the Company at
which a quorum representing a majority of all outstanding common stock is
present, in person or by proxy. Except as hereinabove amended, the provisions of
the 2003 SEIP shall remain in full force and effect.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         461,792
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  953,666
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,467,294
<PP&E>                                       9,434,671
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,256,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,871,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          384,140
<BONDS>                                     22,293,783
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,400
<OTHER-SE>                                 (9,894,127)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,871,187
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,454,456
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  913,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             350,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (38,934)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    33,542
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (72,476)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (4,333,310)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,405,786)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (18.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (18.36)
        

</TABLE>
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1302

To correct the DSH Allotments for Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wyoming

under the medicaid program for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 29, 1999

Mr. GRAMS (for himself, Mr. DOMENICI, and Mr. THOMAS) introduced the

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To correct the DSH Allotments for Minnesota, New Mexico,

and Wyoming under the medicaid program for fiscal

years 2000, 2001, and 2002.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CHANGE IN DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE HOS4 PITAL ALLOTMENTS.

5 Section 1923(f)(2) of the Social Security Act (42

6 U.S.C. 1396r–4(f)(2)) is amended, in the table contained

7 in such section and in the DSH Allotments for fiscal years

8 2000, 2001, and 2002—

9 (1) for Minnesota, by striking ‘‘16’’ and insert10 ing ‘‘33’’;
2

•S 1302 IS

1 (2) for New Mexico, by striking ‘‘5’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘9’’; and

3 (3) for Wyoming, by striking ‘‘0’’ and inserting

4 ‘‘0.1’’.

Æ
§ 201.34 Termination of market agency, dealer and packer bonds. ( a ) Each bond shall contain a provision requiring that, prior to terminating such bond, at least 30 days notice in writing shall be given to the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, by the party terminating the bond. Such provision may state that in the event the surety named therein writes a replacement bond for the same principal, the 30-day notice requirement may be waived and the bond will be terminated as of the effective date of the replacement bond.
( b ) Each bond filed by a market agency who clears other registrants who are named in the bond shall contain a provision requiring that, prior to terminating the bond coverage of any clearee named therein, at least 30 days notice in writing shall be given to the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, by the surety. Such written notice shall be in the form of a rider or endorsement to be attached to the bond of the clearing agency.
( c ) Each trust fund agreement and trust agreement shall contain a provision requiring that, prior to terminating such agreement, at least 30 days notice in writing shall be given to the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, by the party terminating the agreement. Such provision shall state that in the event the principal named therein files an acceptable bond or bond equivalent to replace the agreement, the 30-day notice requirement may be waived and the agreement will be terminated as of the effective date of the replacement bond or bond equivalent.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0580-0015) [47 FR 32695, July 29, 1982, as amended at 54 FR 26349, June 23, 1989; 61 FR 36279, July 10, 1996; 68 FR 75388, Dec. 31, 2003; 84 FR 45647, Aug. 30, 2019]
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-161-CV

JERRY COYEL	APPELLANT

	V.

CITY OF KENNEDALE, TEXAS,	APPELLEE

AND ZONING BOARD OF 

ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF 

KENNEDALE, TEXAS	

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

	FROM THE 236TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Jerry Coyel appeals the trial court’s summary judgment disposing of his entire case.  In his sole point, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by granting the motion for summary judgment of Appellees City of Kennedale, Texas, and the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Kennedale, Texas because the motion did not raise a ground for summary judgment on his due process claim.  Appellees concede that the motion for summary judgment did not address Appellant’s due process cause of action. 

	It is axiomatic that one may not be granted judgment as a matter of law on a cause of action not addressed in a summary judgment proceeding.2  A defendant’s motion for summary judgment stands and falls on the grounds upon which it is made.3  In other words, summary judgment cannot be granted except on the grounds expressly presented in the motion.4  As the parties in this case agree, the motion for summary judgment did not address Appellant’s due process violation cause of action.  Consequently, in ordering summary judgment on a cause of action not addressed in a summary judgment motion, the trial court erred.

	We reverse the portion of the trial court’s judgment that denies Appellant’s due process claim and remand for trial solely on that claim.  We affirm the remainder of the trial court’s judgment.

								LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

								JUSTICE

PANEL B:	DAUPHINOT and HOLMAN, JJ.; and SAM J. DAY, J. (Retired, Sitting by Assignment).

DELIVERED:  January 15, 2004
# C_2010328EN.01002401.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/24

---

Action brought on 5 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-479/10)

()

2010/C 328/40

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Simonsson and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by exceeding the limit values of PM10 in ambient air in 2005, 2006 and 2007 in zones SW 2 and SW 4 and in 2005 and 2006 in zone SW 5, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC (1) of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by exceeding the limit values of PM10 in ambient air in 2005, 2006 and 2007 in zones SW 2 and SW 4 and in 2005 and 2006 in zone SW 5, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC (1) of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air;

10

1

| — | Order Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/30 provides that Member States are to take the measures necessary to ensure that concentrations of PM10 in ambient air do not exceed the limit values laid down in Section I of Annex III as from the dates specified therein. The relevant date in this case is 1 January 2005.

10

It is apparent from the reports sent by Sweden to the Commission concerning 2005 to 2007 that the limit values for PM10 have been exceeded in zones SW 2 and SW 4 during that entire period, and in zone SW 5 in 2005 and 2006.

10

Accordingly, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/30 in respect of those zones and those years.

---

(1)  OJ L 163, p. 41.

1

---