alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §9805. Retention bonuses

(a) Notwithstanding section 5754, the Administrator may pay a bonus to an employee, in accordance with the workforce plan and subject to the limitations in this section, if the Administrator determines that—

(1) the unusually high or unique qualifications of the employee or a special need of the Administration for the employee's services makes it essential to retain the employee; and

(2) the employee would be likely to leave in the absence of a retention bonus.

(b) If the position is described as addressing a critical need in the workforce plan under section 9802(b)(2)(A), the amount of a bonus may not exceed 50 percent of the employee's annual rate of basic pay (including comparability payments under sections 5304 and 5304a).

(c) If the position is not described as addressing a critical need in the workforce plan under section 9802(b)(2)(A), the amount of a bonus may not exceed 25 percent of the employee's annual rate of basic pay (excluding comparability payments under sections 5304 and 5304a).

(d)(1)(A) Payment of a bonus under this section shall be contingent upon the employee entering into a service agreement with the Administration.

(B) At a minimum, the service agreement shall include—

(i) the required service period;

(ii) the method of payment, including a payment schedule, which may include a lump-sum payment, installment payments, or a combination thereof;

(iii) the amount of the bonus and the basis for calculating the amount; and

(iv) the conditions under which the agreement may be terminated before the agreed-upon service period has been completed, and the effect of the termination.

(2) The employee's service period shall be expressed as the number equal to the full years and twelfth parts thereof, rounding the fractional part of a month to the nearest twelfth part of a year. The service period may not be less than 6 months and may not exceed 4 years.

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a service agreement is not required if the Administration pays a bonus in biweekly installments and sets the installment payment at the full bonus percentage rate established for the employee, with no portion of the bonus deferred. In this case, the Administration shall inform the employee in writing of any decision to change the retention bonus payments. The employee shall continue to accrue entitlement to the retention bonus through the end of the pay period in which such written notice is provided.

(e) A bonus under this section may not be considered to be part of the basic pay of an employee.

(f) An employee is not entitled to a retention bonus under this section during a service period previously established for that employee under section 5753 or under section 9804.

(g) No more than 25 percent of the total amount in bonuses awarded under subsection (a) in any year may be awarded to supervisors or management officials.

(Added Pub. L. 108–201, §3(a), Feb. 24, 2004, 118 Stat. 465.)
#### Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Respondent, v. Machnick Construction Co., Inc., et al., Appellants.

Defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court which granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate a notice of examination of Gibbs & Hill, Inc., and E. W. Legier, project engineer, and denied the cross motion of defendants for an order to take the deposition of E. W. Legier, project engineer associated with Gibbs & Hill,'Inc., as a witness, and for the production of certain records. Defendant Machnick Construction Co., Inc., was the successful bidder for the erection of certain buildings and facilities upon plaintiff’s premises to accommodate a linear electron accelerator. The contract was completed and this action was brought to recover damages alleging that the work performed and the materials furnished were *678not “in conformance to the contract and to the specifications and drawings thereof Defendant Maehnick asserts in substance that if there was any defective construction the defect was in the plans and specifications. Gibbs & Hill, Inc., is a firm of consulting engineers, designers and contractors. Through E. W. Legier, its project engineer, Gibbs & Hill, Inc., prepared all of the specifications, drawings and plans for the project which is the subject of this litigation, personally supervised the construction and had complete charge thereof. Defendants sought to examine Gibbs *&*Hill, Inc., and E. W. Legier as employees of the plaintiff. In moving to vacate the notice of examination plaintiff merely asserts eonclusory statements that Gibbs & Hill, Inc., and Legier were never employees of plaintiff, but that Gibbs & Hill, Inc., was an independent contractor. The court at Special Term vacated the notice and denied defendants’ cross motion on the ground it was premature and that the plaintiff should be examined first. We think the court at Special Term improvidently exercised its discretion. Nowhere in the moving papers does it appear that the plaintiff has knowledge of the information sought or that it could furnish such information. It appears without dispute that Gibbs & Hill, Inc., had such complete charge and control of this project and complete knowledge of the facts upon which the issues in this ease will turn, that the ultimate examination of its record and employee is inevitable. We see no reason for taking a circuitous route to obtain the information. The moving papers clearly establish that the testimony of E. W. Legier is material and necessary, and that he resides more than 100 miles from the place of trial. The special circumstances of this ease, briefly alluded to above, entitled the defendants to the relief sought. Order reversed on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and the cross motion of the defendants granted, with $10 costs. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ., concur.
#### § 933.707 Exemption for coal extraction incident to government-financed highway or other construction.

Part 707 of this chapter, *Exemption for Coal Extraction Incident to Government-Financed Highway or Other Construction,* shall apply to surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Bernard Sheldon Levy, Appellant, v. Robert E. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent.

Motion to prosecute appeal on original papers, and for other relief, denied.
PennFuture is a statewide public interest membership organization founded in 1998, with offices across the state. Our Energy Center focuses on helping the transition to a clean energy

economy.

We are pleased that DEP is holding this listening session today. And we applaud EPA’s announced intention to propose a standard in 2014 to limit industrial carbon pollution from existing power plants. Although some are wary of this , EPA’s CO2 standard need n ot be as disruptive as some contend

. For example, a recent report * from the World Resource Institute (WRI) indicates that Pennsylvania can make great strides towards meeting the reductions we expect EPA to propose in the rule. WRI outlines five existing polic ies or increases in activities already under way.

Pennsylvania can reduce power sector CO2 emissions by at least 21 percent below 2011 levels by 2020 by using existing or slightly modified policies, such as:

1. Meeting Act 129's energy efficiency requirement on electric utilities (11 perc ent
reduction from 2011 );

2. Meeting all of the Tier I Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard's 8 percent rene wable energy requirement with in

- state resources (4 percent reduction from 2011);

3. Increasing the use of combined heat and power (CHP) at commercial and industrial facilities by 26 percent (3 percent reduction from 2011);

4. Increasing the use of existing, h igh efficiency natural gas plants (3 percent reduction );

and

5. Improving the efficiency of existing coal plants (2 percent reduction).

Once the rule on existing power plants has been formally proposed, PennFuture looks forward to working with the Department and many other voices in Pennsylvania to develop our state implementation plan to determine how the standards will be met here

. PennFuture is especially interested in employing strategies that will help keep electricity prices stable. For example, impr oving power plant efficiency will likely cost less than changing fuel sources at plants.

We do know that overall costs to society will drop with cleaner fuel sources, due to all the public health problems and associated costs , like lost productivity, that will be avoided as a result in years to come.

As the third largest emitter of global warming pollution, it’s clear that Pennsylvania needs to take seriously the charge to reduce emissions from existing sources.

Thank you.

Submitted Joy Bergey on behalf of PennFuture, December 9 , 2013 Bergey @ pennfuture.org

* Power Sector Opportunities for Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emis sions: Pennsylvania, October 2013

, www.wri.org/publication/power

- sector

- opportunities

- reducing

- carbon

- dioxide

- emissions

- pennsylvania
Map 3-23: USFS Scenic Integrity

Objectives and Visual Quality Objectives

0 20 40 60 80

Kilometers

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

1

LUP Amendments Planning Area

BLM Field Office Boundaries

Forest Service Planning Unit Boundaries

County Boundaries

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Final Environmental Impact Statement - May 2015

W Y O M I N G

M T

I D

M A P A R E A

Crook

Weston

Sundance

Rock Springs

Field Office

§ ̈¦80

U T

C O

N E

S D

Newcastle

Lusk

Douglas

Casper

Cheyenne

Wheatland Torrington

Laramie

Rawlins

Rock Springs

Green River

Evanston

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Rawlins Field Offi ce

Casper Field Offi ce

Newcastle

Field Office

Pinedale

Field Office

Kemmerer

Field Office

Bridger -

Teton

N.F.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine Bow

N.F.

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

Platte

G

o

s

h

e

n

Alb

a

n

y

L

a

r

a

mie

C

o

n

v

e

r

s

e

Nio

b

r

a

r

a

Nat rona

Carbon

S

w

e

etw

ate

r

C

a

r

b

o

n

Sublette

Lincoln

T

eto

n

Fr

e

m

o

nt

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Medicine Bow N.F. & Thunder Basin N.G.

Scenic Integrity Objectives

Very High

High

Moderate

Low

Bridger Teton N.F. Visual Quality Objectives

Preservation

Retention

Partial Retention

Modification

Maximum Modification
EATON CORPORATION
FIRST QUARTER 2009 REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
ITEM 6
EXHIBIT 12
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Three monthsendedMar. 31,
    
    
    Year ended December 312009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Income (loss) from continuing operations
before income taxes & noncontrolling
interests in consolidated subsidiaries
    
    $
    (63
    )
    
    $
    1,140
    
    
    $
    1,055
    
    
    $
    979
    
    
    $
    969
    
    
    $
    756Adjustments(Income) losses of equity investees
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    (11
    )
    
    
    (6
    )
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1Distributed income of equity investees
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    4
    
    
    
    3Interest expensed
    
    
    40
    
    
    
    192
    
    
    
    193
    
    
    
    139
    
    
    
    109
    
    
    
    88Amortization of debt issue costs
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1Estimated portion of rent expense
representing interest
    
    
    14
    
    
    
    58
    
    
    
    44
    
    
    
    41
    
    
    
    38
    
    
    
    37Amortization of capitalized interest
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    13
    
    
    
    12
    
    
    
    12
    
    
    
    12
    
    
    
    17Adjusted income from continuing
operations before income taxes
    
    $
    0
    
    
    $
    1,395
    
    
    $
    1,300
    
    
    $
    1,174
    
    
    $
    1,134
    
    
    $
    902Fixed chargesInterest expensed
    
    $
    40
    
    
    $
    192
    
    
    $
    193
    
    
    $
    139
    
    
    $
    109
    
    
    $
    88Interest capitalized
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    13
    
    
    
    14
    
    
    
    14
    
    
    
    13
    
    
    
    7Amortization of debt issue costs
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1Estimated portion of rent expense
representing interest
    
    
    14
    
    
    
    58
    
    
    
    44
    
    
    
    41
    
    
    
    38
    
    
    
    37Total fixed charges
    
    $
    57
    
    
    $
    265
    
    
    $
    252
    
    
    $
    195
    
    
    $
    161
    
    
    $
    133Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    
    **
    
    
    5.26
    
    
    
    5.16
    
    
    
    6.02
    
    
    
    7.04
    
    
    
    6.78
 
 **
    
    Fixed charges exceeded adjusted income from continuing operations before income taxes in the
first quarter of 2009. 23
# C_2009193EN.01002102.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/21

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2009 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-258/04) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Transitional measures to be adopted by reason of the accession of new Member States — Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector - Time-limit for bringing action - Point from which time starts to run - Lateness — Inadmissibility)

2009/C 193/33

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: J. Pietras and E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, initially, then T. Nowakowski and finally M. Dowgielewicz, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Visaggio and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, initially, then T. van Rijn, L. Visaggio and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis, Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Articles 5, 6(1) to (3), 7(1) and 8(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The Republic of Poland is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Republic of Poland is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

| 3. | The Republic of Cyprus is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Republic of Cyprus is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, of 9.10.2004.

1

---
Sister

Bay

Washington

Island SE

Ellison

Bay

Baileys

Harbor

East

Washington

Island SW

Spider

Island

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

600

600

650

NEWPORT PARK RD

Lake

Michigan

Spider

Island

Outer Shoal

5

N 10

5

770

87°

45° E

50

00' 30"

5

07

530

5

99

02

00

30"

50 08

50

03

04

52' 5

05 750

05

5

49

490

49

5

15'

06

45°

000m

06

000m

04

50

5

5

50

50

50

ER

09

5

07

98

49

98

50

52'

06

50

86° 08

000m

08

07'

08

55'

45° 5

49

30"

10'

000m

02

50

5 02

10'

FEET

50

12'

05

01 5

97 N

000

49

03

57'

50

05

5

30"

50

5

09

ER

000

06

09

5

50

00' 5

50

57'

99

02

03 50

30"

2

000

01

30"

01

10

FEET

50

09

12'

2

50

000

45°

97

00

55'

50

FEET

49

04

86°

07'

07

50

01

EQ

30"

04

FEET

50

03

E

07

87°

50

30"

15'

EQ

5

SPIDER ISLAND, WI

2013

Expressway Local Connector

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Ramp 4WD

Secondary Hwy Local Road

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

SPIDER ISLAND QUADRANGLE

WISCONSIN-DOOR CO.

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

WISCONSIN

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

Imagery..................................................NAIP, July 2010

Roads..............................................©2006-2012 TomTom

Names..........................................................GNIS, 2013

Hydrography....................National Hydrography Dataset, 2010

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 1998

Boundaries....................Census, IBWC, IBC, USGS, 1972 - 2012

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 16T

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Wisconsin Coordinate System of 1983 (central

zone)

This map was produced to conform with the

National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.12

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0

MILES

1

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

ER

EQ

5000

16T

×

Ø

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2013 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 3 ́

1 MILS

4° 59 ́

89 MILS
#### § 1698.1 Purpose.

The provisions of this part prescribe the procedures for requesting and processing requests for advisory opinions relative to a named individual's liability for registration under the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA), 50 U.S.C. App. 451 *et seq.*
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11



                NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


                Statement re computation of per share earnings

                Statement of Computation of Earnings per Share



                                             For the Year
                                          Ended December 31
                                -----------------------------------------
                                 1999            1998               1997
                                -------         -------           -------



Net Earnings                    $12,685         $14,518           $22,185
                                =======         =======           =======



Average common shares
   outstanding                   15,005          15,005            15,019
                                =======         =======           =======



Basic and diluted earnings
   per share                    $  .85          $   .97           $  1.48
                                ======          =======           =======
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1195 

Expressing support for the goals and ideals of National Speech-LanguageHearing Month. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2024 

Mrs. CAMMACK (for herself and Mr. CARTER of Louisiana) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the goals and ideals of National 

Speech-Language-Hearing Month. 

Whereas the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 

for decades championed Better Hearing and Speech 

Month, now known as National Speech-Language-Hearing Month; 

Whereas communication disorders are among the most common conditions in children and adults, affecting tens of 

millions of people in the United States; 

Whereas unaddressed difficulties with speech, language, hearing, and swallowing can negatively impact academic, employment, and social success, as well as quality of life; 

Whereas audiologists specialize in preventing and assessing 

hearing and balance disorders as well as providing 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1195 IH 

audiologic treatment, including hearing aids, and speechlanguage pathologists identify, assess, and treat speech, 

language, swallowing, and cognitive-communication disorders; 

Whereas hearing loss can be present at birth, happen instantly, or, most commonly, develop over time from excessive noise exposure, aging, or a combination of factors; 

Whereas the number of adults in the United States 20 years 

or older with hearing loss is expected to increase from 

44,100,000 in 2020 to 73,500,000 million by 2060; 

Whereas at least 46,000,000 people in the United States 

have a hearing or other communication disorder that affects how they engage with their environment; 

Whereas 3,000,000 Americans who stutter may face mockery, 

bullying, and social stigma, with inadequate access to resources and treatment that can help them speak more 

confidently; 

Whereas uneven coverage of and access to speech, language, 

and hearing health care contributes to significant disparities in health outcomes; 

Whereas timely access to diagnosis and treatment for communication disorders by audiologists and speech-language 

pathologists and other qualified health care professionals 

can reverse or prevent many communication disorders, 

improve outcomes and reduce overall cost of care; and 

Whereas, according to the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Speech-Language-Hearing Month 

provides an opportunity to raise awareness about hearing 

and speech problems, and to encourage people with those 

problems to seek appropriate care: Now, therefore, be it 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1195 IH 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives sup2 ports— 

3 (1) the goals and ideals of National Speech4 Language-Hearing Month; and 

5 (2) efforts to improve access to hearing, bal6 ance, speech, language, swallowing, and cognitive 

7 care. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS