alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THETHOMAS H 

### ',;i,-Ni"O FCOQLE Y LA WSCHOO L

I n cord e hominu m es t anim alegis . 197 2 D O NLEDU C • - • '^•' ' -'^'''••'-• ' ''

- PRESIDEN T & DEA N February 24 , 201 2

Docke t Managemen t

Facilit y U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mW12-14 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 Ref : Su n Country Slo t

Exemptio n - Docke t

Numbe r FAA-2012-008 9 Ladie s an dGentlemen : Su n Country Airline s ha s requeste da n exemptio n fromth e slo t limi t for Ronal dReaga n Washingto n Nationa l Airpor t (DCA ) se t

fort hi n § 93.123(a) , t o permi t th e FA A t o creat e ai r carrie r slot s durin g certai n limite dhour s for Su n Country' s use . Th e propose dai r carrie r slot s woul dreplac e tw o slo t

exemption s imde r

DO T Orde r

2010-12-1 6 awarde dt o Si mCountry . O n January 6 , 2012 , th e Unite dState s Court o f Appeal s for

th e Distric t

o f Columbi aCircui t

vacate d th e DO T Order , an dSu n Countr y >yil l los e it s existin g servic e betwee n DC A an dLansing' s fiapftai Rt^SnTiiteftiStibnarAirport : Specifically , Su n Countr y desire s on e dail y slo t durin g S^c hb f the*i(500jand'!llO O hours . Th e propose dexemptio n woul dpermi t Si mCountry t o fcontinue operatin g it s existin g service s an davoi dan inequitabl e resul t o f th e Court' s order . Thoma s M-. Coole y La w Schoo l ha s regular busines s i n Washington , D.C . A s a n educationa l institution . W e ar e highl y regulate db y federal agencies . A s America' s larges t la w school , w e hav e numerou s student s fromth e Washington , D.C . area , an dw e conduc t education

relate dactivitie s there . Grantin g th e exemptio n wil l benefi t Coole y an di t

student s significantly , an dw e urg e favorabl e consideration . Th e Su n Country DC A servic e i s essentia l t o th e economi c growtho f th e Greate r

Lansin g Region . Th e dail y servic e i s th e onl y larg e aircraf t (737-800 ) servic e t o Washingto n Reaga n Airport i n the^tat e o f

Michiga n outsid e o f

Detroit . Prio r

t o Svu i Country , th e regiona l community hadrequeste dth e introductio n o f thi s servic e fromnumerou s othe r airlin e operator s withou t success . Accordingly , i t

i s critica l tha t

th e FA A tak e th e necessar y step s t o ensur e th e continuatio n o f

th e Su n Country slot s a t

th e establishe dflight

time s i n support

o f Greate r Lansing's'lfMihessah deconomi c groWth . L' *^','. -

30 0 SOUT H CAPITO LAVENU E • POS T OFFIC E BO X 1303 8 • LANSING , MICHIGA N 4890 1 517-371-514 0 FA X 517-334-575 2 email : leducde'coolcy.ed uYou r immediat e approva l o f

thi s exemptio n s o tha t

Su n Country ca n begi n t o ente r flights schedule dfor

sal e for th e balanc e o f

201 2 wil l b e greatl y appreciated .

Do n LeDu c Presiden t an dDea n
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)

**Title:** The "Apollo" of aeronautics[electronic resource] : NASA�s Aircraft EnergyEfficiency Program, 1973-1987

 
PDF,Mobi, epub

 
SuDoc Number: NAS 1.21:2009-574

Item Number: 0830-I (online)

 
CGP system Number: 000804519
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. John Meredith, appellant.

304 N.W.2d 926

Filed April 24, 1981.

No. 43472.

Thomas M. Kenney, Douglas County Public Defender, Stanley A. Krieger, and Bennett G. Horn-stein for appellant.

Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General, and Jerold V. Fennell for appellee.

Heard before Krivosha, C.J., Boslaugh, McCown, Clinton, Brodkey, White, and Hastings, JJ.

White, J.

In this appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska, on a conviction of attempted robbery, the defendant was found guilty by a jury and further found to be an habitual criminal. He was sentenced to a term of from 15 to 25 years in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex. The defendant assigns two errors: (1) That the information *638against the defendant was fatally defective; and (2) That the statute defining criminal attempt under which the defendant was charged is unconstitutional.

The information charged as follows: The defendant “. . . JOHN MEREDITH late of the County of Douglas aforesaid, in the County of Douglas and State of Nebraska aforesaid, then and there being, did then and there forcibly and by violence, or by putting in fear, attempt to take money from the personal protection of Cynthia M. Karaus, the property of 7-11 Store, with the intent to steal . . . .”

Prior to the adoption of the criminal code revision, there was no general attempt statute in the Nebraska criminal code. Criminal attempt is defined in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-201 (Reissue 1979). The case of *State v. Sodders, ante*p. 504, 304 N.W.2d 62 (1981), is controlling. We there held: “[I]n the absence of a motion to quash, an information which alleges an attempt to commit an act or acts which if successful would constitute a statutory crime sufficiently charges an attempted crime so as to withstand a jurisdictional attack made for the first time on appeal.” *Id.*at 510, 304 N.W.2d at 66.

Defendant’s vagueness challenge centers around § 28-201(2), which, as we noted in *Sodders,*may be “inartfully drafted and unduly complex.” *Id.*at 507, 304 N.W.2d at 65. However, the conduct of the defendant is clearly proscribed by subsection (l)(a) of § 28-201: “(1) A person shall be guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if he:

> “(a) Intentionally engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be; or

> “(b) Intentionally engages in conduct which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct intended to culminate in his commission of the crime.”

The defendant has no standing to challenge as vague a portion of the language of a statute which *639does not apply to his conduct when an unambiguous section of the statute clearly applies to such conduct. *State v. Shiffbauer,*197 Neb. 805, 251 N.W.2d 359 (1977).

The defendant’s contentions are both without merit and the judgment and sentence of the trial court are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Clinton, J., concurs in result.
### §2953. Global Change Research Information Office

Not more than 180 days after November 16, 1990, the President shall, in consultation with the Committee and all relevant Federal agencies, establish an Office of Global Change Research Information. The purpose of the Office shall be to disseminate to foreign governments, businesses, and institutions, as well as the citizens of foreign countries, scientific research information available in the United States which would be useful in preventing, mitigating, or adapting to the effects of global change. Such information shall include, but need not be limited to, results of scientific research and development on technologies useful for—

(1) reducing energy consumption through conservation and energy efficiency;

(2) promoting the use of solar and renewable energy sources which reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere;

(3) developing replacements for chlorofluorocarbons, halons, and other ozone-depleting substances which exhibit a significantly reduced potential for depleting stratospheric ozone;

(4) promoting the conservation of forest resources which help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere;

(5) assisting developing countries in ecological pest management practices and in the proper use of agricultural, and industrial chemicals; and

(6) promoting recycling and source reduction of pollutants in order to reduce the volume of waste which must be disposed of, thus decreasing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

(Pub. L. 101–606, title II, §204, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3103.)
# C_2007096EN.01002904.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Milano — Italy) — Bakemark Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Milano 1

(Case C-386/06) (1)

1

(2007/C 96/60)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

1

---
# C_2013344EN.01000501.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-193/11) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’)

2013/C 344/04

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Kraińska, A. Kramarczyk, M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 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 legislation providing for the application of the special travel agency taxation scheme to transactions that travel agencies make in favour of recipients other than travellers

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 incurred by the Republic of Poland; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Republic of Poland;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 204, 09.07.2011.

1

---
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Kenneth D. Wingate

*Arlen D. Nicho wits,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

*James M. Diorio,*assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Argued June 11

decided June 11, 1974

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is granted unless the defendant files his request for a finding and draft finding on or before July 22, 1974.
# C_2010161EN.01004302.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/43

---

Action brought on 2 April 2010 — France v European Commission

(Case T-154/10)

(2010/C 161/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, B. Beaupère-Manokha and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul in its entirety the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in its entirety the contested decision;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 133 Final of 26 January 2010 declaring the implicit unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste under the provisions of French law concerning the legal consequences of its status as a legal entity governed by public law, the equivalent of a State-owned industrial and commercial establishment, to be State aid incompatible with the Common Market (State aid No C 56/2007 (formerly E 15/2005)).

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law alleging:

| — | error of law in that the Commission did not establish to the requisite legal standard the existence of State aid. The Commission failed to comply with the evidential rules relating to State aid with regard both to the burden of proof and the standard of proof; |
| --- | --- |

—

error of law in that the Commission did not establish to the requisite legal standard the existence of State aid. The Commission failed to comply with the evidential rules relating to State aid with regard both to the burden of proof and the standard of proof;

| — | errors in fact and in law in that the Commission found the existence of an implicit unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste; |
| --- | --- |

—

errors in fact and in law in that the Commission found the existence of an implicit unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste;

| — | error in applying the concept of advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. First, the Commission erred in concluding that a guarantee created an advantage in favour of La Poste and, secondly, the Commission erred in considering that La Poste’s positive rating was a result of the existence of the alleged guarantee. |
| --- | --- |

—

error in applying the concept of advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. First, the Commission erred in concluding that a guarantee created an advantage in favour of La Poste and, secondly, the Commission erred in considering that La Poste’s positive rating was a result of the existence of the alleged guarantee.

---
# C_2013141EN.01000401.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-216/11) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/12/EEC - Excise duties - Tobacco products acquired in one Member State and transported to another Member State - Purely quantitative assessment criteria - Article 34 TFEU - Quantitative restrictions on imports)

2013/C 141/05

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 34 TFEU and of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof — National legislation imposing financial sanctions, above certain thresholds, in relation to the holding, for private purposes, of tobacco products acquired in one Member State and transported to another — Purely quantitative assessment criteria — Quantitative restrictions on imports

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that by using a purely quantitative criterion to assess whether the holding by private individuals of manufactured tobacco from another Member State is of a commercial nature and by applying that criterion per individual vehicle (and not per person), and in respect of all of the tobacco products in aggregate, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and, specifically, under Articles 8 and 9 thereof; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by using a purely quantitative criterion to assess whether the holding by private individuals of manufactured tobacco from another Member State is of a commercial nature and by applying that criterion per individual vehicle (and not per person), and in respect of all of the tobacco products in aggregate, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and, specifically, under Articles 8 and 9 thereof;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and the French Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-20121

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN CARLOS MARTINEZ-ORDONEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CV-3667

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Juan Carlos Martinez-Ordonez (Martinez), federal prisoner # 16286-179,

seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of

his motions to alter or amend its judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

Martinez is incarcerated in connection with his conviction for conspiracy to

commit hostage taking of foreign nationals; aiding and abetting the hostage

taking of foreign nationals; and aiding and abetting the harboring of illegal

aliens for the purpose of commercial advantage and private financial gain.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 30, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-20121 Document: 00511249894 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2010
No. 10-20121

A COA is required to appeal the denial of Rule 60(b) relief, except where,

as here, the purpose of the Rule 60(b) motion is only “to reinstate appellate

jurisdiction over the original denial of habeas relief.” Ochoa Canales v.

Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 2007). Martinez needs no COA to

appeal the denial of his Rule 60(b) motions, and his motion for a COA is

DENIED as unnecessary.

The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Goel, 274 F.3d 984, 997 (5th Cir. 2001).

Martinez argues no error in the original judgment denying his § 2255 motion.

Martinez thus fails to show that the denial of his 60(b) motions challenging that

judgment was so unwarranted as to be an abuse of discretion. See Seven Elves,

Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-20121 Document: 00511249894 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2010
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.30


FOURTH AMENDMENT
TO THE
ALBEMARLE CORPORATION
EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
In accordance with Section 12.1 of the Albemarle Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, as Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2013 (the "Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:
1.Effective January 1, 2016, Section 2.5 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
"2.5    Bonus(es) for purposes of the Plan shall mean the following:
		
	(a)
	Awards made under the Company's Annual Incentive Plan and the Global Bonus Plan, and amounts paid under the Sales Incentive Plan. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) hereof, Bonuses shall not include any other award-type payment allowances including, but not limited to, Signing or Retention Bonuses or Special Recognition Awards, unless otherwise specified by the Company.


		
	(b)
	For purposes of determining Employer allocations under Sections 4.2(a)(i)(A) and 4.2(b)(i)(A) of this Plan, Bonuses shall also include awards made under the following programs:


		
	•
	Chemetall Incentive Compensation Plan;


		
	•
	RSM Metalworking Bonus Plan;


		
	•
	Chemetall Incentive Plan Regional Sales Manager;


		
	•
	Salaried Technical Sales Manager Compensation Plan;


		
	•
	Safety Bonus Program;


		
	•
	Rockwood Lithium Inc. Corporate Bonus Plan;


		
	•
	Rockwood Lithium Inc. Salaried Location Bonus Plan;


		
	•
	Rockwood Lithium Inc. Non-Represented Hourly Location Bonus Plan;


		
	•
	Rockwood Lithium New Johnsonville Facility Bonus Plan; and


		
	•
	Commissions paid under the Commissioned Technical Sales Manager Compensation Plan.


		
	•
	Amended and Restated 2009 Rockwood Holdings, Inc. Short-Term Incentive Plan.











		
	(c)
	For purposes of Sections 4.1(a), 4.2(a)(i)(B), and 4.2(b)(i)(B) of this Plan, Bonuses shall also include awards made under the following programs:


		
	•
	Chemetall Incentive Compensation Plan;


		
	•
	RSM Metalworking Bonus Plan;


		
	•
	Chemetall Incentive Plan Regional Sales Manager; and


		
	•
	Rockwood Lithium Inc. Corporate Bonus Plan."


2.The provisions of this Fourth Amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 2016.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation by its duly authorized officer has caused these presents to be signed this 17th day of December, 2015.
ALBEMARLE CORPORATION
	
		
	By:
	/s/ Susan M. Kelliher
### §§285, 286. Repealed. Pub. L. 85–890, §3, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1712

Section 285, act July 21, 1950, ch. 485, §1, 64 Stat. 370, related to functions and activities of National Bureau of Standards for which funds should be available. See section 278e of this title.

Section 286, act July 21, 1950, ch. 485, §2, 64 Stat. 371, related to construction and improvement of buildings and facilities. See section 278d of this title.
#### § 131.53 [Reserved]