alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2154. Compulsory retirement

(a) Regular Commissioned Officers.—Any regular commissioned officer, except a commissioned warrant officer, serving in a grade below rear admiral (lower half) shall be retired on the first day of the month following the month in which the officer becomes 62 years of age.

(b) Flag-Officer Grades.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any regular commissioned officer serving in a grade of rear admiral (lower half) or above shall be retired on the first day of the month following the month in which the officer becomes 64 years of age.

(2) The retirement of an officer under paragraph (1) may be deferred—

(A) by the President, but such a deferment may not extend beyond the first day of the month following the month in which the officer becomes 68 years of age; or

(B) by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, but such a deferment may not extend beyond the first day of the month following the month in which the officer becomes 66 years of age.

(Added Pub. L. 111–281, title II, §215(a), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2916, §293; renumbered §2154, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §112(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4216.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 293 of this title as this section.
# C_2013252EN.01000702.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-412/11) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 6(3) and Annex II - Directive 2001/14/EC - Article 14(2) - Independence of the body to which the exercise of essential functions is entrusted)

2013/C 252/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25), as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1), and Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29) — Failure to ensure the independence of essential functions

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

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.

1

---
### Martin, Michael (OST) From: Sent: To: Subject: u Carol Williams <carol_5672@yahoo.com> Friday, July 06, 2012 4:37 AM EAS (OST) ) a

Comment on EAS service@ Kake, Alaska DOT-OST-2008-0217
I have heard that Wings ofAlaska air service is competing to begin air serviceto Kake once again. They have my vote, AirExcursions' rate is way too expensive & they don't come in often enough. They also only use their small·crafts: Even thefreight rate is too high. , ...... .' ... . ..**~** 

## - Respectfully, Carol AnnWilliams
#### § 1b.5 Formal investigations.

The Commission may, in its discretion, initiate a formal investigation by issuing an Order of Investigation. Orders of Investigation will outline the basis for the investigation, the matters to be investigated, the officer(s) designated to conduct the investigation and their authority. The director of the office responsible for the investigation may add or delete Investigating Officers in the Order of Investigation.
# C_2010134EN.01005301.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/53

---

Action brought on 12 February 2010 — Nicola v EIB

(Case F-13/10)

2010/C 134/89

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the staff report for 2008, both as regards the part relating to objectives and the part relating to assessment, and of the promotions decided upon on 18 March 2009. In addition, an order that the defendant pay compensation for the material and non-material damage caused to the applicant.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the provision of 23 September 2009, in so far as the Appeals Committee rejected the applicant’s appeal against the staff report for 2008. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the provision of 23 September 2009, in so far as the Appeals Committee rejected the applicant’s appeal against the staff report for 2008.

| — | Annul the staff report for 2008, both as regards the part relating to objectives and the part relating to assessment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the staff report for 2008, both as regards the part relating to objectives and the part relating to assessment.

| — | Annul all related, consequent and prior measures, including the guidelines issued by the HR Directorate for summarising the appraisal by using one of the first letters of the alphabet and the quantitative limits imposed in awarding the mark A or B+, and the promotions decided upon on 18 March 2009, given that, in the light of the view expressed by the applicant’s superiors, the EIB failed to take him into consideration under the heading ‘Promotions from Function E to D’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul all related, consequent and prior measures, including the guidelines issued by the HR Directorate for summarising the appraisal by using one of the first letters of the alphabet and the quantitative limits imposed in awarding the mark A or B+, and the promotions decided upon on 18 March 2009, given that, in the light of the view expressed by the applicant’s superiors, the EIB failed to take him into consideration under the heading ‘Promotions from Function E to D’.

| — | Order the EIB to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered and to pay the costs of the proceedings, together with interest, currency revaluation to be taken into account in fixing the amount awarded. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EIB to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered and to pay the costs of the proceedings, together with interest, currency revaluation to be taken into account in fixing the amount awarded.

---
-  Home 
-  Technical Resources 
-  Pipeline Technical Resources 
-  Hazardous Liquid Integrity Management 

# In This Section

                      -  Pipeline Technical Resources 
                      -  Hazardous Liquid Integrity Management (HL IM) Overview 
                      -  HL IM Fact Sheet 
                      -  HL IM Key Documents 
                      -  HL IM Meetings 
                      -  HL IM Notifications 
                      -  HL IM Performance Measures 

## Related Links

                  -                                          Frequently Asked Questions                   

## Contact Us

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

**Email:**phmsa.pipelinesafety@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-4595****Fax:**202-366-4566****Business Hours:**9:00am-5:00pm ET, M-F

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

# Hazardous Liquid Integrity Management (HL IM)

This site is administered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). It provides information regarding the Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas for Hazardous Liquid Operators Rule (see 65 FR 75377 and 67 FR 2136), commonly referred to as the "Liquid IM Rule", or alternatively, the "HL IM Rule."

The HL IM Rule resulted in regulations within 49 CFR Part 195 (§§ 195.450 and 195.452) which specify how pipeline operators must identify, prioritize, assess, evaluate, repair and validate the integrity of hazardous liquid pipelines that could, in the event of a leak or failure, affect High Consequence Areas (HCAs) within the United States. These HCAs include: population areas; areas containing drinking water and ecological resources that are unusually sensitive to environmental damage; and commercially navigable waterways. Operators were given until March 31, 2002 or February 18, 2003, depending on their total pipeline mileage, to develop and implement their IM programs.

For an overview of the progress being made under the hazardous liquid pipeline integrity management (HL IM) regulations, please see the Performance Measures page. There you will find graphs and charts which depict progress and other aspects of operator implementation of the HL IM regulations. You will also find a link to the data provided by pipeline operators in accordance with these regulations.

Other HL IM menu links on the left provide additional information, including an operator IM process flowchart and a fact sheet that summarizes key requirements of the HL IM regulations; details of the HL IM regulations; a glossary of related terminology; FAQs; and, other information useful in more fully understanding these regulations.
talktheyhearyou.samhsa.gov

“Talk. They Hear You.”® CAMPAIGN

“Talk. They Hear You.”® Family Agreement Form

As your parent/mom/dad/caregiver: 

• I promise to talk with you and answer

your questions about the risks and

dangers of drinking alcohol and

using other drugs.

• I will create an alcohol- and drug-free

environment that is safe for you and

your friends.

• I promise to pick you up at any time

or place if you find yourself in an

uncomfortable situation where

underage drinking or other drug use

is involved.

As your child: 

• I understand that drinking alcohol and

using other drugs is harmful to my

health and can make me say or do

things I might regret.

• I will do my best to avoid situations

where my friends and others are

drinking alcohol or using other drugs.

• I promise to call or text you to help get

me out of situations where alcohol and

other drugs are being used.

By signing this form, I agree to help keep 

you alcohol- and drug-free. 

By signing this form, I agree to not drink 

alcohol or use other drugs.

Parent/mom/dad/caregiver signature Child signature

X X
ex10-21.htm


Exhibit 10.21

 

AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 

 

This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Executive Severance Agreement (“Agreement”) is made by and between __________ (“Employee”) and MOCON, Inc., 7500 Mendelssohn Ave. N., Minneapolis, MN 55428 (the “Company”) (each a “Party” and together the “Parties”) as of this ___ day of January, 2016.

 

WHEREAS, the Parties are an Executive Severance Agreement dated __________, ____.

 

WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement in certain respects.

 

INTENDING TO BE LEGALLY BOUND, and in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements in this Amendment, the parties hereby agree as follows:

 

1. Definitions. Terms not defined herein and used with initial capital letters shall, unless the context clearly otherwise requires, have the meaning given in the Agreement.

 

2. Options. Section 2.6(a) is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

 

If the Employee has a Termination of Employment Triggering Event at any time within twenty-four months after a Change in Control, or prior to and in connection with a Change in Control, all outstanding stock options and other equity incentive awards then held by the Employee that were issued under any equity incentive plan that has been approved by the Company’s shareholders, including without limitation the Company’s 1998 Stock Option Plan, the Company’s 2006 Stock Incentive Plan and the Company’s 2015 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Incentive Awards”), will become immediately exercisable and vested in full and any applicable restrictions thereon will lapse, and with respect to any such Incentive Awards that are options, such Incentive Awards will remain exercisable for the remainder of their full terms, without regard to any early termination thereof that would otherwise apply, regardless of whether the Employee remains in the employ or service of the Company or any of its Affiliates.

 

3. Survival. Except as modified hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

 

	
EMPLOYEE
	 	
MOCON, INC.

	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	  	 	  	 
	  	 	  	 
	  	 	
By
	 
	 	 	 	 
	  	 	
Its:
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 13, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
127343 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan TINA HARGREAVES, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 127343 COA: 249433 Livingston CC: 02-019395-NO GENOA LODGING, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e August 12, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1006 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 13, 2005

Clerk
### §682a. Repealed. Aug. 19, 1937, ch. 704, §7(c), 50 Stat. 707

Section, act June 3, 1935, ch. 164, §23, 49 Stat. 320, related to disqualification of persons convicted of felony or fraud for positions with Federal land banks. See section 640i of this title.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERNANDO SANTANA-MONTES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-71591

Agency No. A089-854-426

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 10, 2015** 

Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Fernando Santana-Montes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

MAR 18 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-

85 (9th Cir. 2006). We grant the petition for review, and we remand.

In denying Santana-Montes’s asylum and withholding of removal claims,

the agency found Santana-Montes failed to establish a well-founded fear of future

persecution on account of a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their

decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in

Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), Cordoba v.

Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077

(9th Cir. 2014), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227

(BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Thus, we

remand Santana-Montes’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine

the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18

(2002) (per curiam). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 

2 12-71591
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements of The Smithfield Companies,
Inc. for the nine months ended December 31, 1999, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       7,191,529
<SECURITIES>                                   575,840
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,997,846
<ALLOWANCES>                                    81,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,995,692
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,303,413
<PP&E>                                       9,420,511
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,859,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,061,936
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,090,136
<BONDS>                                      2,800,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,308,570
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,863,230
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,061,936
<SALES>                                     16,925,583
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,980,378
<CGS>                                       11,175,094
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,752,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              99,530
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,395,715
<INCOME-TAX>                                   438,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            957,715
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   957,715
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42


</TABLE>
### §1475. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title XII, §1205(c), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 716

Section, Pub. L. 91–601, §6, Dec. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1672, provided for appointment of a technical advisory committee to assist the Secretary in carrying out the purposes of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Aug. 13, 1981, see section 1215 of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as an Effective Date of 1981 Amendment note under section 2052 of this title.
§ 157.218 Changes in customer name. ( a ) *Automatic authorization.* The effective certificates of the certificate holder may be amended to the extent necessary to reflect the change in the name of an existing customer, if the certificate holder has filed any necessary conforming changes in its Index of Customers, including the customer's old name.
( b ) *Reporting requirements.* For each customer name change authorized during a calendar year, the certificate holder shall include as a part of its annual report: ( 1 ) The old and new names of the customer; and
( 2 ) A brief explanation of the reason for the name change.
[Order 234, 47 FR 24266, June 4, 1982, as amended by Order 603, 64 FR 26609, May 14, 1999]
#### § 381.134 Requirement of formulas.

Copies of each label submitted for approval, shall when the Administrator requires in any specific case, be accompanied by a statement showing, by their common or usual names, the kinds and percentages of the ingredients comprising the poultry product and by a statement indicating the method or preparation of the product with respect to which the label is to be used. Approximate percentages may be given in cases where the percentages of ingredients may vary from time to time, if the limits of variation are stated.

[37 FR 9706, May 16, 1972, as amended at 39 FR 4569, Feb. 5, 1974; 59 FR 45196, Sept. 1, 1994. Redesignated at 60 FR 67457, Dec. 29, 1995]
Poly (ammonium itaconate)

Structure not shown
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 

SEE LEGENDS ON REVERSE SIDE OF CERTIFICATE 
  

					
	 Number
	 	 	 	 Shares

	*0*	 	 Incorporated Under

the Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

on March 3, 2016
	 	*0*

 Randolph Bancorp, Inc. 

Common Stock 
 Par Value $0.01

 THIS CERTIFIES THAT **SPECIMEN** is the record holder of Zero (0) Shares of the Common Stock, Par Value $0.01, of RANDOLPH
BANCORP, INC. transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof, in person or by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed or assigned. 

A statement of the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions granted to or imposed upon the respective classes or series of shares of stock of the
Corporation and upon the holders thereof as established by the Articles of Organization, and the number of shares constituting each series and the designations thereof, may be obtained by any shareholder upon request and without charge at the
principal office of the Corporation. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers this
     day of              20    . 
  

					
	  
	 		 	  

	President	 		 	Secretary








 THE CAPITAL STOCK EVIDENCED HEREBY IS NOT AN ACCOUNT OF AN INSURABLE TYPE AND IS NOT INSURED BY THE FEDERAL
DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. 
 The following abbreviations when used in the inscription of the face
of this certificate shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations. 
  

															
	TEN COM	 	-	 	as tenants in common	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT	 	-	 	  
	 	 Custodian
	 	  

		 		 		 		 		 	(Cust)	 		 	(Minor)
								
	TEN ENT	 	-	 	as tenants by the entireties	 		 		 		 		 	
		 		 		 		 	Under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
					
	JT TEN	 	-	 	as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common	 		 	  

		 		 		 		 	(State)

 Additional abbreviates may also be used through not in the above list 

For value Received,                      hereby sell,
assign and transfer unto                      

                    Shares of the Common Stock of the
within named Corporation, represented by the within Certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint                      Attorney to
transfer the said shares of said Common Stock on the books of the said Corporation, pursuant to the provisions of the By-Laws thereof, with full powers of substitution in the premises. 

 

			
	Dated:	 	                     A.D.
                                         
   
		
		 	  



 In Presence of: 

	
	
	  


 NOTE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME OF THE SHAREHOLDER(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE
CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICLAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.