alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p. 1



# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# ^QOll-E-16 1 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:10 AM

Sheet 201 of 264P. 2 Sep-04-9 8 01:45 P

_ i w w *\* A » * V P.O l IflOO i

CONTAC T REPOR T FOR M PES PROJEC

T NO .
FROM : DATE : CONTACT : COMPANY/AGENCY

£&tV ? Charle

s Heste r
Stev e Kavanaugh ' Bowi e Manufacturing

, Inc . (Address/Telephone No.: ) (712)464-319 1 (Pax ) (712 ) 464-860 1

fWac tSummar y Mr . Kavanaug

h wa s contacte d t o obtai n infonnation abou

tcosts incurre

d by Bowi e manufacturin

g a s a resul to f thei r changin g t o a lowe r styren

e (35% ) resi

n fo r thei r manufacturin

g process . Bowi e produce

s fiberglass unit

s fo r mountin g o n th e bac k o f picku p trucks . Thes e unit

s ar e designe d primaril

y fo r us e b y veterinarian

s for mobil e storag

e o f equipmen

tan d medicines . Mr . Kavanaug

h explaine d tha tBowi e i s a fairl

y smal l sho p tha tuse s abou

t50-7 5 ga i ( 1 t o P/ j drums ) o f resi n pe r day . Thei

r resi n manufacture

r i s base d in California an

d suggeste d tha tBowi e tr y a new lo w styren

e resi n tha tha d bee n delivere d t o mee tCalifornia' s polyeste r resi n rules . Mr

. Kavanaug

h state d tha tth e changeove

r t o th e ne w Tesi n wa s accomplishe d wid i n o increas e i n th e cos to f

tiieir process . The

y hav e experience

d n o problem s i n thei r manufacturin

g proces s o

r thei r produc tqualit y an d appearance

. Mr . Kavanaug

h stated tha

tthei r operator s spen ta littl e tim

e adjustin g th e pressur e an d spra y pattern s on th e applicator

s bu ttha t th e changeove r wa s considere d t o h e quic k an d easy . H e als o state

d tha tth e ne w resi n cause s les s ey e irritatio

n an d les s odo r problem s tha n thei r previous resin . Th

e pric e o f th e lo w styren e resi n i s th e same as thei

r previous resi

n an d Mr . Kavanaug

h i s ver y pleased wit

h th e result

s o f th e changeover .



### Ce*f*<*$A < W xvu . ^o .*** £ <x.^c W *Xp*~*~ ^-A^ V ^~ t ^A^-V**" ^
Exhibit 10.3
 FORM OF EXECUTIVE
LONG-TERM INCENTIVE
PERFORMANCE UNIT AGREEMENT
 AGREEMENT ___  , 200___ Company   Participant
 GLOBAL INDUSTRIES, LTD. 2005 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN Plan
 1. Grant of Performance Units  , 20___ Date of Grant  Performance Unit Stock
 2. Earned Shares .
 Certification Date




---



##### 



3. Forfeiture Restrictions Forfeiture Restrictions, Restricted Shares.
     2




---



##### 



4. Stock Issuance .
  3




---



##### 



5. Securities Laws Compliance
 Act
  6. Withholding of Tax .
 4




---



##### 



7. Community Interest of Spouse
 8. Employment Relationship .
 9. Entire Agreement; Amendment .
 10. Notices .
 5




---



##### 



11. Interpretation .
 12. Acknowledgments . Company Parties
 13. Certain Definitions .
 Earnings Per Share or EPS
 GAAP
 Performance Period
 Retirement
 Termination for Cause
 11. Binding Effect .
 6




---



##### 



12. Governing Law .
 Signature page follows
 7




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 GLOBAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.By:Name:Title:PARTICIPANTName:




---



##### 



Appendix A
Performance Unit Agreement
(EPS Based; One-Year)
 AWARD OF PERFORMANCE UNITS
 PerformancePeriod
    
    Full EPS
    
    Target EPS
    
    Threshold EPSJanuary 1, 20[__] to
    
    
    [$____]
    
    
    
    [$____]
    
    
    
    [$____]December 31, 20[__]
 Earnings Per Share for thePerformance Period
    
    Earned PercentageAt or above the Full EPS
    
    100%Above the Target EPS but less than the Full EPS
    
    Interpolated percentage between 50% and 100%At the Target EPS
    
    50%Above the Threshold EPS but less than the Target EPS
    
    Interpolated percentage between 25% and 50%At the Threshold EPS
    
    25%Below the Threshold EPS
    
    0%
(LOGO)
COUNTRYWIDE


April 22, 1997

Grant Thornton LLP
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA  90017

Gentlemen:

As of and for the year ended February 28, 1997,  Countrywide  Credit Industries,
Inc. and Subsidiaries (which includes its wholly-owned  subsidiary,  Countrywide
Home Loans,  Inc.) ('the  Company')  has complied in all material  respects with
minimum  servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of
America's UNIFORM SINGLE  ATTESTATION FOR MORTGAGE  BANKERS.  As of and for this
same period,  the Company had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and omissions
policy in the amount of $30,000,000.





/s/Carlos M. Garcia
Carlos M. Garcia
Managing Director-Finance
Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Accounting Officer
### SUBCHAPTER I—DISPOSAL OF MATERIALS ON PUBLIC LANDS
### §1107. Executive Director of Center

#### (a) Appointment by Board

(1) There shall be an Executive Director of the Center who shall be appointed by the Board. The Executive Director shall be the chief executive officer of the Center and shall carry out the functions of the Center subject to the supervision and direction of the Board. The Executive Director shall carry out such other functions consistent with the provisions of this chapter as the Board shall prescribe.

(2) The Executive Director shall not be eligible to serve as Chairman of the Board.

#### (b) Compensation

The Executive Director of the Center shall be compensated at the rate specified for employees in grade GS–18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 100–458, title I, §118, Oct. 1, 1988, 102 Stat. 2175.)

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

#### References in Other Laws to GS–16, 17, or 18 Pay Rates

References in laws to the rates of pay for GS–16, 17, or 18, or to maximum rates of pay under the General Schedule, to be considered references to rates payable under specified sections of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, see section 529 [title I, §101(c)(1)] of Pub. L. 101–509, set out in a note under section 5376 of Title 5.
EXHIBIT 32.2


		CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER
	   PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
		SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Diasense, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith R. Keeling,
Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  May 15, 2006


/s/ Keith R. Keeling

Keith R. Keeling
Principal Accounting Officer
### §5505. Payments from applicable accounts of House of Representatives

#### (a) In general

No payment may be made from the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives (as determined by the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives), unless sanctioned by that Committee. Payments on vouchers approved in the manner directed by that Committee shall be deemed, held, and taken, and are declared to be conclusive upon all the departments and officers of the Government.

#### (b) Definitions

As used in this section—

(1) the term "applicable accounts of the House of Representatives" means accounts for salaries and expenses of committees (other than the Committee on Appropriations), the computer support organization of the House of Representatives, and allowances and expenses of Members of the House of Representatives, officers of the House of Representatives, and administrative and support offices of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the term "Member of the House of Representatives" means a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.

(Pub. L. 104–186, title I, §105, Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1721.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 95–1 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is comprised of section 105 of Pub. L. 104–186. Subsec. (c) of section 105 of Pub. L. 104–186 amended former section 95 of this title.

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in former section 95 of this title prior to amendment of that section by Pub. L. 104–186, title I, §105(c), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1722.

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on House Oversight of House of Representatives changed to Committee on House Administration of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Jan. 6, 1999.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-97-147 November 7, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC, STROH BREWERY COMPANY TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS

INVOLVING PENNSYLVANIA PLANT’S HANDLING OF NUCLEAR GAUGES

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with

representatives of the Stroh Brewery Company on Wednesday, November

12, to discuss apparent violations of agency requirements involving

the firm’s Fogelsville, Pa., plant.

The predecisional enforcement conference will begin at 10 a.m.

in the Division of Nuclear Materials Safety conference room at the NRC

Region 1 office in King of Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the public

for observation.

The apparent infractions include the unauthorized disposal of

generally licensed radioactive material and a failure to perform

required leak tests of the material from 1981 to 1997.

Specifically, the radioactive material, americium-241, was

contained in fill-level gauges used at the brewery. The gauges are

used to check the level of beer in cans, bottles and kegs.

On July 28, the plant disposed of one of the gauges, holding

100 millicuries of the material, by transferring it to a recycling

firm that was not licensed to accept it. The scrap metal hauler, in

turn, delivered the device to a recycling facility in Temple, Pa.,

where it was mistakenly placed into a shredder and damaged. That

resulted in isolated contamination of surrounding scrap material.

The apparent violations pose no health and safety hazard to the

workers or public, or to the products made in the brewery.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference

does not mean that the NRC has determined a violation has occurred or

that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the purpose is to

discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety significance; to

provide the licensee with an opportunity to point out any errors that

may have been made in the NRC inspection report; and to enable the

licensee to outline its proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at this

conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials at a later

time.
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 08-20564

Summary Calendar

_____________________

MARTHA SCOTT, Individually, And as a Representative

of the Estate of David Scott; ESTATE OF DAVID SCOTT;

ROBIN DENISE BRYANT, Robin Denise Bryant as Next

Friend of ICS, a Minor and ALS, a Minor

Plaintiffs-Appellees

v.

RAUL VENEGAS, Deputy, in His Individual

Capacity 

Defendants-Appellants

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas, Houston

(4:06-CV-1436)

 

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

*

Defendant-Appellant Raul Venegas, a Harris County, Texas deputy

sheriff, appeals the interlocutory ruling of the district court denying qualified

immunity to Venegas in his individual capacity in connection with claims

asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 and grounded in alleged violations of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 7, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
2

the Fourteenth Amendment substantive Due Process rights of decedent David

Scott, a pre-trial detainee who had been in the custody of Venegas. Plaintiffs

have alleged that Venagas’s delivery of Scott to an inmate processing center

rather than to a hospital or other medical facility, constituted deliberate

indifference to Scott’s serious medical needs. 

Adopting the recommendations of the magistrate judge in her

Memorandum, Recommendation and Order, the district court denied

qualified immunity to Venegas based on the existence of a dispute of material

fact, described by the magistrate judge as “two significantly different versions

of key persons of the event” as to the facts leading up to Scott’s death, one

version being that of Venegas and the other being that of EMS paramedic

Kevin Traynor. Concluding that the “qualified immunity analysis [for

Venegas] hangs in the balance of these critical fact disputes,” the

recommendations of the magistrate judge adopted by the district court

convinces us that, indeed, one of the two widely divergent versions of the

critical facts preceding Scott’s death will ultimately determine entitlement of

Venegas to qualified immunity. This quintessential dispute of material fact

deprives us of appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s interlocutory

denial of qualified immunity at this summary judgment stage of the
See, e.g., Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20 (1995). 1

3

proceedings.1

Venagas’s appeal of the district court’s denial of qualified immunity is

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
### §658e. Provisions relating to House of Representatives

#### (a) Enforcement in House of Representatives

It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider a rule or order that waives the application of section 658d of this title.

#### (b) Disposition of points of order

#### (1) Application to House of Representatives

This subsection shall apply only to the House of Representatives.

#### (2) Threshold burden

In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of order under section 658d of this title or subsection (a) of this section must specify the precise language on which it is premised.

#### (3) Question of consideration

As disposition of points of order under section 658d of this title or subsection (a) of this section, the Chair shall put the question of consideration with respect to the proposition that is the subject of the points of order.

#### (4) Debate and intervening motions

A question of consideration under this section shall be debatable for 10 minutes by each Member initiating a point of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent on each point of order, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening motion except one that the House adjourn or that the Committee of the Whole rise, as the case may be.

#### (5) Effect on amendment in order as original text

The disposition of the question of consideration under this subsection with respect to a bill or joint resolution shall be considered also to determine the question of consideration under this subsection with respect to an amendment made in order as original text.

(Pub. L. 93–344, title IV, §426, as added Pub. L. 104–4, title I, §101(a)(2), Mar. 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 59.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, or on the date 90 days after appropriations are made available as authorized under section 1516 of this title, whichever is earlier, and applicable to legislation considered on and after such date, see section 110 of Pub. L. 104–4, set out as a note under section 1511 of this title.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS -- REGION I

 475 Allendale Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-02-065 November 8, 2002

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331

NRC ISSUES FINDING OF LOW TO MODERATE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE 

TO INDIAN POINT 2

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has cited Entergy Nuclear Operations for a violation of low

to moderate safety significance involving fire-protection requirements at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power

plant in Buchanan, N.Y.

 An inspection completed on July 19 found that moderate degradation in a control room wall

created passages that could allow smoke and gases to penetrate the control room in the event of a fire in

the adjacent turbine building. Although Entergy identified the initial degradation in February, the

company’s initial corrective actions did not ensure that the wall conformed to the licensed three-hour fire

barrier design assumptions. In addition, the extent-of-condition review was not thorough because it did

not identify all of the deficiencies in the wall.

 Entergy recently notified the NRC that repairs to the wall have been completed, but the NRC must

still inspect the work. That review is expected to take place later this year.

Using the agency's significance determination process, NRC officials classify certain conditions at

nuclear power plants as being one of four colors which delineate increasing levels of safety significance,

beginning with "green" and progressing to "white," "yellow" or "red."

The finding was preliminarily assessed as “white” in the letter forwarding the inspection report to

the company. That August 28 letter also provided the company the opportunity to meet with the NRC to

discuss the finding in a regulatory conference, or to provide further information in writing. The company

declined the conference.

After considering the information gathered during the inspection, as well as the company’s written

response, the NRC has determined the finding was appropriately classified as “white.”

NRC also issued a Notice of Violation, citing the company for failing to maintain all provisions of

the NRC-approved fire-protection program.
Entergy has 10 days to appeal the staff’s significance determination and 30 days to respond to the

Notice of Violation.

###
§ 143.11 Merchandise eligible for appraisement entry. ( a ) *Without Commissioner's approval.* An application for entry by appraisement may be approved by the port director without securing the approval of the Commissioner of Customs for any of the following merchandise: ( 1 ) Merchandise damaged on the voyage of importation, by fire or through marine casualty or any other cause, without fault on the part of the shipper;
( 2 ) Merchandise recovered from a wrecked or stranded vessel;
( 3 ) Household effects used abroad and personal effects, not imported in pursuance of a purchase or agreement for purchase and not intended for sale;
( 4 ) Articles sent by persons in foreign countries as gifts to persons in the United States;
( 5 ) Tools of trade of a person arriving in the United States;
( 6 ) Personal effects of citizens of the United States who have died in a foreign country; and
( 7 ) Any of the following articles, which are deemed in accordance with section 498(a)(10), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1498(a)(10)), to be articles the value of which cannot be declared: ( i ) Articles which are secondhand;
( ii ) Articles which have become deteriorated or damaged before importation otherwise than as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
( iii ) Articles which are not the subject of a commercial transaction; and
( iv ) So-called overages or dock accumulations which cannot be identified with any particular shipment.
( b ) *With Commissioner's approval.* Entry by appraisement for merchandise not provided for in paragraph (a) of this section shall be allowed only with the approval of the Commissioner of Customs. Each request for such approval shall be filed in triplicate with the port director and shall state in detail the reasons for the request for entry by appraisement.
( c ) *Merchandise not eligible.* An application for an entry by appraisement shall not be approved after the merchandise has been appraised or released from Customs custody, nor for damaged merchandise when the damage occurs after importation.
### §7. Time of election

The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.

(R.S. §25; Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 130, §6, 18 Stat. 400; June 5, 1934, ch. 390, §2, 48 Stat. 879.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §25 derived from act Feb. 2, 1872, ch. 11, §3, 17 Stat. 28.

The second sentence of this section, which was based on section 6 of the act Mar. 3, 1875 and made this section inapplicable to any State that had not yet changed its day of election and whose constitution required an amendment to change the day of election of its State officers, was omitted.

#### Amendments

1934—Act June 5, 1934, substituted "3d day of January" for "fourth day of March".

#### Constitutional Provisions

The first section of Amendment XX to the Constitution provides: "The terms of Senators and Representatives [shall end] at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."

Time for election of Representatives, see Const. Art. I, §4, cl. 1.
#### § 205.4 [Reserved]