alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION – NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 01-1640

DEBORAH SCOTT,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

SULZER CARBOMEDICS, INC., MARK HAMLET, AND ROBERT WHITE,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Rosenn*, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

Matthew Cobb, with whom Law Office of Matthew Cobb was on

brief, for appellant.

Lisa J. Damon, with whom Brigitte M. Duffy and Seyfarth Shaw

were on brief, for appellees. 

January 3, 2002

_______________
* Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
-3-

Per Curiam. Deborah Scott appeals from the judgment

of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of her

former employer, Sulzer Carbomedics, Inc. Scott claims that

Sulzer Carbomedics, which terminated her employment in June of

1997, discriminated against her on the basis of her gender in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e; the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d); and the

Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute, Mass Gen. Laws ch.

151B. She also seeks to recover against two of her supervisors

at Sulzer Carbomedics for intentional interference with

contractual relations, and against all defendants for libel and

slander. On May 15, 2001, the district court issued a

Memorandum and Order granting summary judgment for the

defendants on all counts. Scott v. Sulzer Carbomedics, Inc.,

141 F. Supp. 2d 154 (D. Mass 2001).

After a detailed review of the evidence, the district

court found that Scott had failed to meet "her initial burden of

presenting circumstantial evidence sufficient to create an

inference that the basis for [the] adverse employment decisions"

was her gender. Id. at 173. The district court concluded that

"[t]he story that emerges from the documents is not one of

discrimination, but one of performance," id. at 161, and that

Scott had "failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as
-4-

to whether she performed her job at an acceptable level," id. at

172. The district court also found Scott's tort claims to be

without merit. Id. at 177-80. 

We have said that "when a trial court accurately takes

the measure of a case and articulates its rationale clearly and

convincingly, 'an appellate court should refrain from writing at

length to no other end than to hear its own words resonate.'"

Cruz-Ramos v. Puerto Rico Sun Oil Co., 202 F.3d 381, 383 (1st

Cir. 2000) (quoting Lawton v. State Mut. Life Assurance Co., 101

F.3d 218, 220 (1st Cir. 1996)). This is such a case. We

therefore affirm the judgment below for substantially the

reasons given in the district court's comprehensive and wellreasoned opinion, upon which we cannot improve.

Affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 12
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 12 appear at 69 FR 32438, June 10, 2004.

§ 12.53 Power and communication lines and gas pipelines. ( a ) A licensee must take all reasonable precautions, and comply with all reasonable specifications that may be provided by the Regional Engineer, to ensure that any power or communication line or gas pipeline that is located over, under, or in project waters does not obstruct navigation for recreational or commercial purposes or otherwise endanger public safety.
( b ) Clearances between any power or communication line constructed after March 1, 1981 and any vessels using project waters must be at least sufficient to conform to any applicable requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code in effect at the time the power or communication line is constructed.
( c ) The Regional Engineer may require a licensee or applicant to provide signs at or near power or communication lines to advise the public of the clearances for any power or communication lines located over, under, or in project waters.
[Order 122, 46 FR 9036, Jan. 28, 1981. Redesignated at 87 FR 1519, Jan. 11, 2022; 87 FR 8411, Feb. 15, 2022]
### §263. Designation of zone standard times

The standard time of the first zone shall be known and designated as Atlantic standard time; that of the second zone shall be known and designated as eastern standard time; that of the third zone shall be known and designated as central standard time; that of the fourth zone shall be known and designated as mountain standard time; that of the fifth zone shall be known and designated as Pacific standard time; that of the sixth zone shall be known and designated as Alaska standard time; that of the seventh zone shall be known and designated as Hawaii-Aleutian standard time; that of the eighth zone shall be known and designated as Samoa standard time; and that of the ninth zone shall be known as Chamorro standard time.

(Mar. 19, 1918, ch. 24, §4, 40 Stat. 451; Pub. L. 89–387, §4(c), Apr. 13, 1966, 80 Stat. 108; Pub. L. 98–181, title II, §2003(a), Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1297; Pub. L. 106–564, §1(b), Dec. 23, 2000, 114 Stat. 2811.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–564 struck out "and" before "that of the eighth" and inserted before period at end "; and that of the ninth zone shall be known as Chamorro standard time".

1983—Pub. L. 98–181 substituted "Alaska" for "Yukon", "Hawaii-Aleutian" for "Alaska-Hawaii", and "Samoa" for "Bering".

1966—Pub. L. 89–387 added Atlantic standard time as first zone designation; redesignated as eastern standard time, central standard time, mountain standard time and Pacific standard time for second through fifth zones former designation of United States standard eastern time, United States standard central time, United States standard mountain time and United States standard Pacific time for former zones one through four; added Yukon standard time as sixth zone designation; redesignated as Alaska-Hawaii standard time for seventh zone former designation of United States standard Alaska time for fifth zone; and added Bering standard time as eighth zone designation.

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

#### Conforming Changes in Time Zone Designations

Pub. L. 98–181, title II, §2003(b), Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1297, provided that:

"(1) Any reference to Yukon standard time in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be held and considered to be a reference to Alaska standard time.

"(2) Any reference to Alaska-Hawaii standard time in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be held and considered to be a reference to Hawaii-Aleutian standard time.

"(3) Any reference to Bering standard time in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be held and considered to be a reference to Samoa standard time."
# C_2013252EN.01001102.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — French Republic v European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-601/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Protection against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 - Regulation authorising less restrictive measures of surveillance and eradication than those previously laid down - Precautionary principle - Level of protection of human health - New elements capable of altering the perception of the risk - Failure to state reasons - Distortion of the facts - Error of law)

2013/C 252/17

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, C. Candat, R. Loosli-Surrans, G. de Bergues and S. Menez, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-257/07 France v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 of 17 June 2008 amending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2008 L 202, p. 11) in so far as it authorises monitoring and eradication measures less restrictive than those previously prescribed for ovine and caprine flocks — Failure to state the reasons for the decision — Distortion of the facts — Incorrect legal classification of the facts — Breach of the precautionary principle

France

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.

1

---
EXHIBIT 10.5
                                  ------------

                               AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     THIS  AMENDMENT  NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT  AGREEMENT  (this  "Amendment")  dated
October 20, 1998 is by and between BARTON  INCORPORATED,  a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), and ALEXANDER L. BERK (the "Employee").

     WHEREAS,  the Company and Employee  are parties to that certain  Employment
Agreement  dated  September 1, 1990 (as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Employment
Agreement dated November 11, 1996, the "Agreement"), and desire to further amend
the Agreement on the terms and subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  for good and  valuable  consideration,  the  receipt  and
sufficiency  of which are  hereby  acknowledged,  the  parties  hereto  agree as
follows:

     1. Position and Duties.  Paragraph 2 of the Agreement is hereby  deleted in
its entirety and the following inserted therefor:

     "Employee shall serve as the President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company  and as a member  of the  boards of  directors  of the  Company  and its
principal  subsidiaries,  and as a member of the Company's Management Committee.
The Employee  shall report and be  responsible  directly to the Chief  Executive
Officer  of  Canandaigua  Brands,  Inc.  ("CBI"),  with such  powers  and duties
consistent  with his offices as may from time to time be  authorized or directed
by CBI's Chief Executive  Officer.  Employee shall devote his full-time services
to the  employment  provided  for herein.  All  services  and duties of Employee
rendered hereunder shall be performed faithfully, diligently and competently and
to the highest standards of loyalty."

     2. No Further  Modifications.  Except as specifically set forth herein, the
Agreement shall remain in full force and unaffected hereby.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of
the date first above written.

COMPANY:                                      EMPLOYEE:

BARTON INCORPORATED                           /s/ Alexander L. Berk
                                              ------------------------------
                                              Alexander L. Berk
/s/ Richard Sands
-------------------------------
Richard Sands
Vice President
### §6402. Definitions

For the purposes of this chapter—

(1) the term "Council" means a Propane Education and Research Council created pursuant to section 6403 of this title;

(2) the term "industry" means those persons involved in the production, transportation, and sale of propane, and in the manufacture and distribution of propane utilization equipment, in the United States;

(3) the term "industry trade association" means an organization exempt from tax, under section 501(c)(3) or (6) of title 26, representing the propane industry;

(4) the term "odorized propane" means propane which has had odorant added to it;

(5) the term "producer" means the owner of propane at the time it is recovered at a gas processing plant or refinery;

(6) the term "propane" means a hydrocarbon whose chemical composition is predominantly C3H8, whether recovered from natural gas or crude oil, and includes liquefied petroleum gases and mixtures thereof;

(7) the term "public member" means a member of the Council, other than a representative of producers or retail marketers, representing significant users of propane, public safety officials, academia, the propane research community, or other groups knowledgeable about propane;

(8) the term "qualified industry organization" means the National Propane Gas Association, the Gas Processors Association, a successor association of such associations, or a group of retail marketers or producers who collectively represent at least 25 percent of the volume of propane sold or produced in the United States;

(9) the term "retail marketer" means a person engaged primarily in the sale of odorized propane to the ultimate consumer or to retail propane dispensers;

(10) the term "retail propane dispenser" means a person who sells odorized propane to the ultimate consumer but is not engaged primarily in the business of such sales; and

(11) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Energy.

(Pub. L. 104–284, §3, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3370.)
#### § 354.127 Condemnation and treatment of carcasses.

Each carcass, or any part thereof, which is found to be unsound, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food shall be condemned by the inspector and shall receive such treatment, under the supervision of the inspector, as will prevent its use for human food and preclude dissemination of disease through consumption by animals.
###### Editorial Note on Part 284

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 284 appear at 65 FR 10222, Feb. 25, 2000.

#### §§ 284.225-284.226 [Reserved]
§ 286.101 Application for stay. ( a ) *General rule.* Any person who believes that any provision of a final or interim regulation issued under the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 is unlawful as applied to such person may file an application for stay.
( b ) *Content of application.* The application shall state, clearly and concisely: ( 1 ) The provision of the regulation, by section, paragraph, subparagraph and clause, as appropriate, which applicant seeks to have stayed;
( 2 ) The conditions which the applicant believes require the stay, including the irreparable injury which the applicant believes will result if the stay is not granted; and
( 3 ) The factual and legal basis for applicant's contention that the final or interim regulation is unlawful.
( c ) *Filing requirements.* The application shall be under oath. An original and three conformed copies shall be filed with the Secretary of the Commission.
( d ) *Commission action.* The Commission may grant the application, in whole or in part, by issuing an order specifying the scope of the stay granted and the effective dates of the stay.
[43 FR 57599, Dec. 8, 1978, as amended at 44 FR 13473, Mar. 12, 1979]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS TABLE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND THE STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000055387
<NAME> KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,477,862
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     12,788
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         137,351
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        42,372
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,670,373
<COMMON>                                       308,140
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                         (594)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            290,492
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 598,038
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     40,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           546,351
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              51,800
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       21
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 434,163
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,670,373
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      341,782
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            21,742
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     266,874
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     288,616
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         53,166
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               3,656
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  56,822
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        19,773
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,049
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,128
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   35,921
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        33,280
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       18,691
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          72,826
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>ALL OUTSTANDING COMMON STOCK OF KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY IS HELD BY ITS
PARENT COMPANY, KU ENERGY CORPORATION.  THEREFORE, EARNINGS PER SHARE IS NOT
APPLICABLE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### §4802. Council established

There is established the Competitiveness Policy Council (hereafter in this chapter referred to as the "Council"), an advisory committee under the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 100–418, title V, §5203, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1456; Pub. L. 117–286, §4(a)(73), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4313.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–286 substituted "chapter 10 of title 5." for "the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)."

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

#### Termination of Advisory Councils

Advisory councils established after Jan. 5, 1973, to terminate not later than the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date of their establishment, unless, in the case of a council established by the President or an officer of the Federal Government, such council is renewed by appropriate action prior to the expiration of such 2-year period, or in the case of a council established by the Congress, its duration is otherwise provided by law. See sections 1001(2) and 1013 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
# C_2011319EN.01002703.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/27

---

Order of the General Court of 3 August 2011 — Uspaskich v Parliament

(Case T-507/10) (1)

1

2011/C 319/57

Language of the case: Lithuanian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, Corrigendum OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

1

---
§ 39.9 Enforcement of Commission Rules and Orders. ( a ) The Commission may take such action as is necessary and appropriate against the Electric Reliability Organization or a Regional Entity to ensure compliance with a Reliability Standard or any Commission order affecting the Electric Reliability Organization or a Regional Entity, including, but not limited to: ( 1 ) After notice and opportunity for hearing, imposition of civil penalties under the Federal Power Act.
( 2 ) After notice and opportunity for hearing, suspension or decertification of the Commission's certification to be the Electric Reliability Organization.
( 3 ) After notice and opportunity for hearing, suspension or rescission of the Commission's approval of an agreement to delegate certain Electric Reliability Organization authorities to a Regional Entity.
( b ) The Commission may periodically audit the Electric Reliability Organization's performance under this part.
From: Jones, Danielle [mailto:Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 3:44 PM

To: Cogliano, Gerain <Cogliano.Gerain@epa.gov>

Subject: RMP Comment on feasibility

Attachment:

feasibility.docx

Hi Gerain,

Attached is OSHA’s language recommendation for the term feasibility.

Please let me know if the program area would like to set up a call to discuss.

Best,

Danielle

Danielle Y. Jones

Policy Analyst

Office of Management and Budget

Phone: (202) 395-1741 | djones@omb.eop.gov
Attachment: feasibility.docx

Insert for page 93 of the EO 12866 RMP draft

EPA is also proposing to require owners or operators to evaluate the feasibility of implementing 

any IST or ISD considered. EPA believes a feasibility analysis of any considered IST or ISD is necessary to 

ensure the facility owner or operator seriously considers whether IST or ISD modifications could further 

reduce risks and prevent accidents at the facility.

EPA is proposing to use the term “feasibility” to describe this analysis because, as described 

above, it is already widely used in the IST field. However, this term has a distinct meaning under the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act, where the courts look to whether a safety measure is capable of 

being done, see American Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 509 (1981); Seaworld of Florida, 

LLC v. Perez, 748 F.3d 1202, 1215 (D.C. Cir. 2013). In the enforcement context, this means that technical 

know-how about materials and methods are available or adaptable to specific circumstances, which 

when applied create a reasonable possibility that employee exposure to occupational hazards will be 

reduced, and that the firm is financially able to implement the measure without severe adverse 

economic effect. OSHA CPL 02-00-159, Field Operations Manual 3-22 (2015); Avcon, Inc., 23 O.S.H. Cas. 

(BNA) 1440, 1454 n.24 (O.S.H.R.C. Apr. 5, 2011). OSHA has indicated that it would be unable to adopt 

the term feasibility under its PSM standard as defined in this proposal. Because of the potential for 

confusion, EPA solicits comment on whether it would be better if EPA used another term, such as 

“practicability” for this analysis.

EPA is not proposing to require sources affected by this provision to implement an evaluated IST 

or ISD because the decision to implement such measures must consider the numerous factors related to 

processes, facilities, and society at large. Improper implementation of a seemingly safer alternative may 

lead to undesired consequences. EPA believes that only qualified facility personnel should choose the 

best measures that can reduce the risk of an accident at the facility. This decision should be based on a 

careful analysis and take into account: the chemicals present and their associated hazards; the 

operations and process conditions involved; and the types of equipment used that are specific to the 

facility’s process.

Commented [ECB1]: OSHA Insert