alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Customer Information: FISC Red Hill

Pearl Harbor, HI

Project Manager: Mr. Christopher Caputi

Mass Technology Site Supervisor Jimmy Wolford

Scope of Work: Furnish all required management, labor, services, materials

and equipment to perform precision tightness testing of Tank

# 9 an underground fuel storage tank located at FISC Red

Hill, Pearl Harbor, HI.

Report compiled by: Date: 03-20-2008

Larry D. Speaks

I declare under penalty of perjury that I am a licensed tank tester in the State of

California and that the information contained in this report is true and correct to the best

of my knowledge.

Test performed by: Date: 03-20-2008

Jimmy Wolford

License number: 90-1286

Mass Technology Corporation

P. O. Box 1578

Kilgore, Texas 75662

Phone (903) 986-3564

Fax (903) 984-3569

Precision Leak Measurement

Report
1

Table of Contents

 Table of Contents ......................................................................... 1

 Executive Summary ......................................................................... 1

 Results of Testing – Tank 9 .............................................................. 2

 Chart of data – Tank 9...................................................................... 2

Executive Summary

Testing of the 12,600,000 gal underground storage tank located at FISC Red

Hill, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii commenced February 27, 2008 and was completed

March 11, 2008. The tank was filled with JP-5 and a precision leak test was

conducted. The result of that test indicates the tank is tight. Testing was

performed using Mass Technology Corporation protocols set out in the third

party evaluations. All tank valves were adequately secured such that any

fluid loss was isolated to leakage. Therefore, the containment integrity of the

tank was not compromised and the test is considered conclusive.

Tank 9: After 240 hours of testing the tank is certified tight.
2

Tank Data Tank 9

Diameter: 100 ft. Height: 250 ft.

Tank Type: Vertical Underground

Contents: JP-5

Properties: 0.82 Specific Gravity

Product Level: 210 ft.

Test Data

Start Date: 02-27-2008

Completion Date: 03-11-2008

Unit Operator: Jimmy Wolford

Test Results

Certified Tight

Summary of Results

The fluid mass data was recorded over a 240-hour test period. A linear regression of the

recorded fluid mass data resulted in no leak detected above the minimum detection level of

0.5 gallons per hour. All tank valves were adequately secured such that any fluid loss was

isolated to leakage. Therefore, the containment integrity of the tank has not been

compromised and the tank is considered not to be leaking.
Maryland Department of the Environment

1 800 Washington Boulevard

Baltimore, MD 21230

Dear Secretary Wilson:

On February 7, 2007, the United States Enviromriental Protection Agency (EPA) received

a revision to the Maryland State Irnp]ementation Plan (SIP) from the Maryland Department of theEnvironment pertaining to a revision for the State Transportation Conformity SIP. EPA hasdeteimined that the submittal is administrative]y and technically complete, and is reviewing it toprepare a Notice of Proposed Rule making.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Martin Kotsch,

Energy, Radiation and Indoor Environment Branch, at (215) 814-3335. Martin is the principalcontact for this rulemaking.

Slcerely,

J3lith M. Katz, rector

Air Protection Division

cc: Diane Franks, Program Manager, Air Quality Planning, MDE

Brian Hug, Acting Deputy Program Manager, Air Quality Planning, MDE

Customer Service flotline: 1-800-438-2474
# C_2007114EN.01001001.xml

| 24.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/10

---

Calls for proposals under the work programmes of the 7th EC Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities

(2007/C 114/09)

Notice is hereby given of the launch of two calls for proposals under the work programmes of the 7th Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007 to 2013).

Proposals are invited for the following calls concerning trans-national collaboration between ERA-MORE members and trans-national collaboration between all National Contact Points (NCPs) who have been officially appointed by the relevant national authorities. The call deadlines and budgets are given in the call texts, which are published on the CORDIS website.

People Specific Programme:

People Specific Programme:

| Call Identifier | : | FP7-PEOPLE-2007-5-3-ERA-MORE
  FP7-PEOPLE-2007-5-4-NCP |
| --- | --- | --- |

Call Identifier

:

FP7-PEOPLE-2007-5-3-ERA-MORE

FP7-PEOPLE-2007-5-4-NCP

These calls for proposals relate to the work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2007)562, of 26 February 2007.

These calls for proposals relate to the work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2007)562, of 26 February 2007.

Information on the modalities of the calls, the work programme, and the guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals is available through the CORDIS website: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/calls/

---
# C_2011232EN.01004003.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/40

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 June 2011 — Mantzouratos v European Parliament

(Case F-64/10) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Promotion - Promotion period 2009 - Decision not to promote - Admissibility of plea of illegality - Comparative examination of merits - Manifest error of assessment)

(2011/C 232/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Mantzouratos (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by V. Montebello-Demongeot and K. Zejdová, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the European Parliament’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 13 in the promotion period 2009 and also of the decisions to promote to that grade officials having fewer promotion points than the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010, p. 33.

---
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-13-00611- CV United Central Contr ol, Inc., App ellant

v. Duncan & Boyd Jewelers of Austin, L LC; Valley F orge Ins. Co. as Sub rogeeof D&B; and H anover Insurance Co., Appellees F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 345 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 0-0 0266 9, H ONO RAB LE O RLINDA NARANJO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss its appea l. We g rant the motion and dismiss the appe al. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) .

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: Oc tober 17, 2013
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.7


Summary of BSA Terms and Conditions
Similar to share options, non-employee warrants (“BSAs”) entitle the holder to exercise the warrant for the underlying vested shares at an exercise price per share determined by our board of directors, which exercise price must be at least equal to the average closing price of the ordinary shares for the twenty trading days preceding the grant date of the BSAs. In addition to any exercise price payable by a holder upon the exercise of any non-employee warrant, non-employee warrants need to be subscribed for at a price at least equal to ten percent (10%) of the exercise price of the underlying ordinary shares, which subscription price is meant to reflect at least the fair market value of the applicable warrants on the date of grant. The limit on the size of the non-employee warrant pool is determined by our shareholders.
Administration. Pursuant to delegations granted at our annual shareholders’ meeting, our board of directors determines the recipients, dates of grant and exercise price of non-employee warrants, the number of non-employee warrants to be granted and the terms and conditions of the non-employee warrants, including the period of their exercisability and their vesting schedule. The board of directors has the authority to extend the post-termination exercise period of non-employee warrants after the end of the term of office.
Non-Employee Warrants. Our non-employee warrants granted to independent directors are generally subject to a vesting schedule as follows: 1/4 on the first anniversary of the date of grant and 1/16 to vest at the end of each quarter following the first anniversary for 36 months as from such date. Upon expiration of a director’s term of office, all of the BSAs granted to such director become immediately exercisable, provided that they can only be sold in accordance with the vesting schedule. The term of non-employee warrants is ten years from the date of grant or, in the case of death or disability of the beneficiary during such ten-year period, six months from the death or disability of the beneficiary. Unless a longer period is specified in the notice of grant or otherwise resolved by the board of directors, a non-employee warrant shall remain exercisable for 90 days following a beneficiary’s termination with the Company.
Non-employee warrants may be transferred to any person and may be exercised by their holder at any time subject to vesting and any other grant conditions, as applicable.
Change in Control. Most of our non-employee warrants provide that in the event of a change in control, as defined in the relevant grant documents, unvested warrants will automatically vest in full.
### §57. Separability clause

If any provision of this subchapter, or the application thereof to any person, partnership, or corporation, or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this subchapter, and the application of such provisions to any other person, partnership, corporation, or circumstance, shall not be affected thereby.

(Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, §17, as added Mar. 21, 1938, ch. 49, §4, 52 Stat. 114.)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6476

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TOM J. BILLMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-89-466-JFM, CA-97-2120-JFM) Submitted: February 9, 1999 Decided: March 4, 1999 Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcia Gail Shein, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA G. SHEIN, P.C., Atlanta, Georgia; Charles Ivey Billman, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Barbara Slaymaker Sale, Assistant United States Attorney, Joyce Kallam McDonald, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Tom J. Billman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We have carefully considered Billman’s claims of insufficiency of the evidence,ineffective assistance of counsel, trial error, constructive amendment of the indictment, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective waiver of his right to a jury trial. Finding no merit to any of these assignments of error, we decline to disturb the district court’s order dismissing Billman’s motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Robert Leitch *et al. v.*John Wentworth *et al.*

1. *Ikjunction—of the collection of taxes far fraudulent purposes.*If a bill to restrain town officers from the collection of a tax alleges fraud in the levy of the taxes to pay a judgment *fraudulently*recovered against the town, this will give the court jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed.

3. Parties *defendant to hill to enjoin tax.*On bill to restrain town officers from the collection of taxes fraudulently levied to pay an unauthorized judgment, the parties to whom the taxes are to go, if collected, are not necessary parties, and it is not error to dismiss them from the case, where they have not filed a cross-bill.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. William W. Harwell, Judge, presiding.

*147Mr. J. H. Knowlton, for the appellants.

Messrs. Scoville, Corwin & Bailey, for the appellees.

Per Curiam :

This was a bill in chancery, in the Cook

circuit court, to restrain the collection of a tax alleged to have been illegally assessed for the purpose, in part, of paying a judgment alleged to have been fraudulently obtained against the town of Lyons. The bill was filed by tax-payers of that town, and to which appellants here, who were to be the recipients of these taxes, when collected, were made defendants.

On the hearing, on complainants’ motion, they were dismissed out of the case, and the injunction made perpetual against the other defendants, officers of the town of Lyons, and the count}' treasurer.

From this decree the party to whom these taxes, or a large portion of them, were to go, in the event of their collection, take this appeal, and raise various questions.

We think, on examination of the record, that the court did not err in making the injunction perpetual as against the town officers. We are of opinion, also, that these appellants were not necessary parties in the injunction. They had no vested interest in the tax levied, nor had they filed a cross-bill. Their remedy is by *mandamus,*if they have any. Their co-defendants, who are enjoined, do not complain.

Upon the point of jurisdiction, the allegation of fraud in levying the tax complained of, for an unauthorized purpose, was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction.

The decree must be affirmed.

*Decree affirmed.*
# C_2013171EN.01000402.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-95/11) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation allowing non-taxable persons to be considered as a single taxable person subject to VAT)

2013/C 171/07

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent, assisted by H. Peytz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Očková and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Clohessy SC and N. Travers BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Hall QC)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of taxable person — National legislation allowing non-taxable persons to be part of a VAT group

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.

1

---
# C_2007074EN.01000501.xml

| 31.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

30 March 2007

(2007/C 74/03)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3318 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 157,32 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4508 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67980 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3462 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6247 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,69 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1190 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5807 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,010 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 247,80 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7097 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8668 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,3547 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,340 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8455 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6484 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5366 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4070 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8644 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0204 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 253,02 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7005 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2951 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4050 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 152,68 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6047 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,200 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,6580 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,057 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3318

JPY

Japanese yen

157,32

DKK

Danish krone

7,4508

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67980

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3462

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6247

ISK

Iceland króna

87,69

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1190

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5807

CZK

Czech koruna

28,010

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

247,80

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7097

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8668

RON

Romanian leu

3,3547

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,340

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8455

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6484

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5366

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4070

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8644

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0204

KRW

South Korean won

1 253,02

ZAR

South African rand

9,7005

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2951

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4050

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 152,68

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6047

PHP

Philippine peso

64,200

RUB

Russian rouble

34,6580

THB

Thai baht

43,057

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2012366EN.01001601.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — PIGI — Pavleta Dimova ET v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-550/11) (1)

1

(Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduction - Adjustment - Theft of goods)

2012/C 366/26

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PIGI — Pavleta Dimova ET

Applicant:

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Article 185(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National tax practice under which the VAT deducted as input tax on the acquisition of goods must be adjusted if the goods are stolen — Concept of theft duly proved or confirmed

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 185(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national tax provisions, such as those contained in Articles 79 and 80 of the Law on value added tax (Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost), which require, where a shortfall in the goods subject to value added tax has been established, that an adjustment be made to the deduction of that input tax at the time of acquisition of those goods, where the taxable person was the victim of a theft of those goods and the perpetrator has not been identified.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.

1

---
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 

Mr. David K. Paylor, Director 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

629 East Main Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Dear Direct/

tw 1 •v• : ~J/ 

NOV 1 2 2015 

By letter and enclosures dated June 16, 2015, the Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality (VADEQ) submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) an annual 

ambient air monitoring network plan in accordance with the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 

Part 58 -Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. Based on our review, EPA approves VADEQ's 

June 16, 2015 annual ambient air monitoring network plan on the basis that the plan meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR Part 58.1 0. 

Additionally, 40 CFR Section 58.11(c) requires any changes to the air monitoring 

network or design of the following air monitoring systems be approved by the EPA 

Administrator: 

a) Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Systems (P AMS) 

b) Particulate Matter Speciation Trends Network (STN) 

c) The National Core Monitoring Network (NCore) 

EPA determined that VADEQ's June 16,2015 annual ambient air monitoring network 

plan does not require approval from the EPA Administrator because there were no changes to 

any of the air monitoring systems listed above. 

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me or have your staff contact 

Mr. Brian Hamilton, EPA's Virginia Liaison, at (215) 814-5497. For questions regarding this 

approval action, your staff may contact Mr. David L. Arnold, Acting Director, Air Protection 

Division, at (215) 814-2172. 

cc: Mr. Mike Dowd, V ADEQ 

Shawn M. Garvin 

Regional Administrator 

0 Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free. 

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474