alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph J. Currie, Respondent, v. Peters & Peters, Inc., et al., Appellants, and T. Frederick Jackson, Inc., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by one of two employers and its insurance carrier from a decision and award for disability charged equally to an accident sustained in 1953 in the employ of respondent employer, and to an accident in 1958 for which appellants have been held responsible; appellants defining the sole issue as whether there is substantial evidence supporting the finding that the 1958 accident contributed to claimant’s disability after October 10, 1959. Appellants contend that the board should have accepted certain medical testimony — which they erroneously describe as the only medical proof respecting liability after October 10, 1959 — that as of the latter date claimant had reverted to the status antedating the second accident; but this testimony contained substantial contradictions, the witness at one point attributing permanent disability to the first accident and at another indicating that the effects of each accident had completely subsided, leaving a condition due solely to the pre-existing osteoarthritis; but, whether or not contradictory, this testimony was not, of course, conclusive upon the board, which accepted instead a detailed report of medical examination made November 10, 1960, finding disability due to both accidents and to the underlying osteoarthritis and the fact of claimant’s age. The reports of appellants’ two consultants, each of whom made examinations before and after October 10, 1959, indicated unchanged disability and offered no opinion as to causation. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent employer and carrier as against appellants. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
Nicor Inc.
 Form 8-K
 Exhibit 10.01
 
 
 Amendment To


Nicor Inc. Supplemental Senior Officer Retirement Plan


(As Amended and Restated for Post-2004 Benefits, Effective January 1, 2008)







WHEREAS, Nicor Inc. (the “Company”), previously established and maintains the Nicor Inc. Supplemental Senior Officer Retirement Plan (As Amended and Restated for Post-2004 Benefits, Effective January 1, 2008) (the “Plan”); and




WHEREAS, the Company now desires to amend the Plan to provide for a contribution for the year the Plan terminates due to a Change in Control (as defined in the Plan).




NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power reserved to the Company by Section 8 of the Plan, the Plan be and hereby is amended by adding the following subsection 3.4 to the Plan:




“3.4           Contribution upon Change in Control.  Notwithstanding Section 3.2, and in lieu of a Contribution under Section 3.2, in the event of a Change in Control (as defined in Section 6.9), the Company shall on, or as soon as practicable following the Change in Control (but prior to distribution of Plan Participant Accounts under Section 6.9) make a Contribution to the Plan on behalf of each Participant who had not had a Separation from Service (other than on account of Retirement or Disability) prior to the Change in Control. For this purpose, the Participant’s Eligible Compensation shall be his or her Salary for the Plan Year through the date of the Change in Control, and the Participant’s target annual incentive for the year in which the Change in Control occurs, pro rated based on the number of days elapsed during the Plan Year prior to and including to the Change in Control.




This Amendment to the Plan shall be effective on the date approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company.




In all other respects, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be signed on its behalf by its duly authorized representative as of this 8th day of November, 2011.









NICOR INC.









By:  /s/ Claudia Colalillo


Claudia Colalillo


SVP Human Resources and Corporate Communications
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
RELATED FORM 10-Q FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
ILLUMINATING COMPANY AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000020947
<NAME> THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    4,700,689
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    753,312
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         430,079
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     1,397,673
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,281,753
<COMMON>                                     1,242,148
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       83,118
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          (281,652)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,043,614
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          171,404
<PREFERRED>                                    238,325
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         3,072,394
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             103,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   58,830
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                       14,714
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     60,791
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                42,006
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               2,476,675
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                7,281,753
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,359,341
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            74,393
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     996,034
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,070,427
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        288,914
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             (1,341)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 287,573
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       185,631
<NET-INCOME>                                   101,942
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     27,287
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   74,655
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        88,816
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      247,669      
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         344,832
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Follow Up Meeting on EPA's Regi

Haze Proposal for Texas and Okla

July 15, 2015
Good News: SO2 Emissions Continue Significan

• First and second quarter 2015 SO2 emissions co

are 34% lower than 2014 and 55% lower than 20

• By comparison, the first half of 2015 (Q1&Q2) ar

24,188 tons less than the first half of 2014 and 5tons less than the first half of 2011 
But . . . Continued Impact from International S

• International sources continue to impact 3 Clas

areas

• TCEQ’s daily air quality forecasts indicate air q

impacts from Mexico & Central America agricuburning and African dust

• Monday 05/18/15 – “A patchy mix of smoke from ag

burning in Mexico and Central America and African dcontinue over most of South Texas, parts of Central southeastern portions of West Texas, and southern of the Panhandle . . . .”

• Tuesday 05/26/15 Extended Outlook - “Light amoun

smoke from agricultural burning in Mexico and CentAmerica should cover most of South and Central Texwell as southeastern portions of West Texas . . . .”

• How will international emissions be accounted for in fina
And . . .Regional Consistency Issues Remain

• EPA’s approach to the Texas SIP continues to be un

how other regions are handling regional haze issue

• One example: EPA Region 3 approved the West Vir

year progress report on June 5, 2015, highlighting sdifferences: 

• Region 3 finds reliance on CAIR/CSAPR adequate;• Region 3 finds state on track to meet RPG based on 

data and “changes in energy demand affecting capacutilization of power plants”

• Region 3 finds that post-2018 that are outside of the 

planning period should be considered first by the Stasubsequent SIPs for future implementation periods”

• This example highlights many of the concerns with 

proposal for Texas SIP: discounts CAIR/CSAPR; faconsider improvements in visibility; reaches outside planning period.

• How will Region 6 resolve these consistency issues
Scope of Additional Modeling and Technical W

• In seeking extension from court, EPA said it w

conduct “additional air quality modeling and ottechnical work.” What is the nature of this addmodeling?

• EPA’s new modeling and analyses should inclu

updated visibility, emissions, and international transport data.

• With CSAPR and MATS now in effect, how wil

account for these rules in its new modeling?

• Will require new notice and comment period—

timing of that?
Questions or follow up on Luminant’s a

and comments
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jeffrey K.
Berg certify that:

1.          I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Communications Systems,
Inc.;

2.          Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.          Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;

4.          The
registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.          The
registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

|                       |    |                                        | 
|---------------------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | 
|                       | By | /s/ Jeffrey
 K. Berg                   | 
|                       |    | Jeffrey K.
 Berg                      
|Date: August
 10, 2010 |    | President
 and Chief Executive Officer

26

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
related Form 10-Q financial statements for The Toledo Edison Company and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
(Amounts in 1,000's.)  Income tax expense includes $2,221,000 related to
other income.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000352049
<NAME> THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,194,896
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    413,516
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         114,307
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       940,419
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,663,138
<COMMON>                                       195,670
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      328,559
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             35,071
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 559,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    210,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           960,274
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              51,934
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   66,430
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                20,043
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 795,157
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,663,138
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      452,770
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            28,191
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     349,307
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     375,277
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         77,493
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               4,885
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  82,378
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        32,328
<NET-INCOME>                                    50,050
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      8,139
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   41,911
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        34,300
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       72,970
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         131,159
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1105 

To amend the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to reauthorize 

the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2023 

Mrs. WAGNER (for herself, Mr. COHEN, Mr. HUNT, Ms. JACKSON LEE, and 

Mr. CLINE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 

2000 to reauthorize the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog 

Grant Program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Debbie Smith Act of 

5 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

7 Section 2(j) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimi8 nation Act of 2000 (34 U.S.C. 40701(j)) is amended by 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1105 IH

1 striking ‘‘fiscal years 2019 through 2024’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘fiscal years 2024 through 2029’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-3559

___________ James A. Buck, Jr., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Internal Revenue Service, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 7, 2009 Filed: May 13, 2009

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. James A. Buck, Jr., appeal s the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination and wrongful-discharge suit against his former employer, the Internal Revenue Servi ce. Having carefully reviewed the district court and administrative records and consid ered Buck’s arguments, we find no basis for reversal. SeeCrawford v. Runyon , 37 F.3d 1338, 1340 (8th Cir. 1994) (in case where plaintiff challenges Merit Servi ces Protection Board (MSPB) decision and asserts claims under Title VII, appellate court reviews MSPB decision on-2- administrative record and Title VII claim de novo.) Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 2300** 

ALPHONSO DUNBAR , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. MARTIN O ’ MALLEY; JOHN KUO; ARTHUR HOLMES, JR.; PETER V.R. FRANCHOT; MARCUS L. BROWN; HENRY NORRIS; GARY D. MAYNARD , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Deborah K. Chasanow , Chief District Judge. ( 8:13

- cv - 01589

- DKC )

Submitted : March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014

Before HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges. *

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Alphonso Dunbar, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

* This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).2 PER CURIAM: Alphonso Dunbar seeks to appeal the district court’s order s dismissing his complaint without prejudice and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accor ded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App . P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bow l e s v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ). The district court’s order denying Dunbar’s timely filed Rule 59(e) motion was entered on the docket o n July 11 , 2013 . The notice of appeal was filed on October 23, 2013

. Because Dunbar failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is cour t and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 7/2/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

DONALD EDWARD BREEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Respondents - Appellees. No. 95-5280 (D. Ct. No. CV-95-414-B) (N. D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This pro se appeal is from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus by the district court. Petitioner appeals on the ground that the district court erred in failing to- 2 -

find violations of the constitution or a federal law in the allegations related to the circumstances surrounding petitioner’s guilty plea. All of petitioner’s allegations relate to alleged failures on the part of the sentencing court to fully inform petitioner’s of possible collateral consequences to his guilty plea in the event that he might at some time in the future commit another crime. We are required to examine the appeal of a denial of a writ of habeas corpus to determine whether thepetitioner has sufficiently alleged a denial of a federal constitutional right. AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). We have examined and construed liberally the pleadings in this case and have determined that the allegations in the original petition and those raised on appeal are not sufficient to allege a denial of any federal constitutional right. Lennox v. Evans , No. 96- 6041, 1996 WL 343632 (10th Cir. 1996). We therefore decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Appeal DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge
§ 1051.31 Payroll reports. ( a ) On or before the 20th day after the end of each month, each handler that operates a pool plant pursuant to § 1051.7 and each handler described in § 1000.9(c) shall report to the market administrator its producer payroll for the month, in the detail prescribed by the market administrator, showing for each producer the information described in § 1051.73(f).
( b ) Each handler operating a partially regulated distributing plant who elects to make payment pursuant to § 1000.76(b) shall report for each dairy farmer who would have been a producer if the plant had been fully regulated in the same manner as prescribed for reports required by paragraph (a) of this section.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-89,899-05

EX P ARTE RODNEY ADAM HURDSMAN, A ppl icant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CR17817-B IN THE 271ST DISTRICT COURT

F ROM WISE COUNTY Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the T ex as C o d e of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 41 8 S

. W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant raises sever al claims and has attache d a computer-g ener ated memorandum. App l i cant’s cer tificate of compliance reg arding the memorandum is improper. I t wa s made pursuant to Rule 9.4(i) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e, but the cer

tificate must be made pursuant to Rule 73.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e, which rule addre sses permissible leng ths of memorandums in habea s proce eding s. The habea s application is there fore dismiss ed as nonc ompliant. T E X . R. A P P . P R O C . 73.2. Filed: Oc tober 9, 2019 Do not publish