alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michael Raymond To: Brenda EdwardS-Jones/EE/DOE@DOE

cc:

03/27/2007 10:35 AM Subject: Memo on reason for adding clarifying text to the variable-speed calculation algorithm

0 Federal Record • Not a Federal Record

User Filed as: Not Categorized in ERMS

Brenda,

Please put the attached file in docket EE-RM/TP-02-002.

Thanks,

Michael G. Raymond

Project Manager

Building Technologies Program

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Department of Energy, EE-2J

1000 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20585-0121

phone - (202) 586-9611

fax - (202) 586-4617

Forwarded by Michael Raymond/EE/DOE on 03/27/2007 10:33 AM

"Brian Dougherty' To: michael.raymondee.doe.gov

<brian.dougherty@nist.g cc:

ov> Subject: Memo on reason for adding clarifying text to the variable-speed calculation algorithm

03/26/2007 12:27 PM 0 Federal Record • Not a Federal Record

User Filed as: Not Categorized in ERMS

If this external e-mail is a record and you are the first EERE recipient, click the 'File to ERMS button in

the toolbar to categorize this e-mail

Michael,

Please have the attached memo added to the test procedure docket.

will work on the bullet item list this afternoon.

Thanks,

Brian _Ut.dC

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 24
March 26, 2007

Memorandum For: Dr. Michael Raymond, DOE

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Washington, D.C. 20585

From: Brian Dougherty, NIST

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

Subject: Inquiry on the DOE test procedure for residential central air conditioners and heat

pumps

On January 24, 2007, Robert Vance of Rheem Manufacturing Company contacted me to ask

whether the parameters Q (87), k-2 (87), E' (87), and E2 (87) that are required to

conduct the calculations stated in section 4.1.4 of the DOE test procedure were determined via

calculation or directly from lab testing. I told Robert that the quantities are determined from

evaluating equations 4.1.4-1, 4.1.3-3, 4.1.4-2, and 4.1.3-4, respectively, at T = 87°F. Minimum

and maximum speed tests at 87°F were not required.

Please call me if you have any questions.

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 24
#### Roy M. Cohn, Appellant, v. Lionel Corporation, Respondent.

Order and judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the respondent. The agreement by which plaintiff agreed to purchase stock of defendant corporation at a specified price if put to him by Steinthal was not a guarantee of any obligation of defendant. It did not undertake to make any payment or perform any act which defendant was obligated to do either by agreement with Steinthal or otherwise. In fact, plaintiff obligated himself to do something which defendant expressly refused to do and which Steinthal would not have accepted defendant’s promise to perform. Defendant could not have undertaken the obligation unless it would have had a sufficient surplus at the time of the put. Absent’ any agreement to reimburse plaintiff for any loss that he might suffer, and absent any legal duty to assume such obligation, no cause of action is stated. Concur — Steuer, J. P., Capozzoli and Witmer, JJ.; Tilzer, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent. The fact that paragraph 9 of the complaint alleges the reason why the defendant corporation itself could not give any further guarantee does not compel the conclusion at this stage of the action, if liberal construction of pleadings is to have any meaning, that the plaintiff is precluded from recovering from the corporation for the liability which he was requested to assume to enable the corporation to consummate its transaction. The nature of plaintiff’s cause and the identity of the transactions sought to be litigated are sufficiently - pleaded to meet the defendant’s attack directed toward plaintiff’s third cause of action by motion under CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 7). Accordingly, I would modify the order and judgment to the extent appealed from, by denying the defendant’s motion addressed to the third cause of action.
§ 227.41 Recovery of funds. ( a ) FNS may recover funds from a State agency under any of the following conditions: ( 1 ) If FNS determines, through a review of the State agency's reports, program, or financial analysis, monitoring, audit or otherwise, that the State agency's performance is inadequate or that the State agency has failed to comply with this part or FNS instructions and guidelines.
( 2 ) If FNS determines that the State agency is not expending funds at a rate commensurate with the amount of funds distributed or provided for expenditure under the program.
( 3 ) If FNS determines that a State agency is not providing full and timely reports.
( b ) FNS shall effect such recoveries of funds through adjustments in the amount of funds provided under the program.
§ 1784.36 Procurement by applicants eligible under this part ( a ) For applicants eligible under § 1784.8(a)(2) and (3), contracting and procurement activities will follow DEC or ANTHC policies, procedures and methods which are based on and shall follow Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200). In specifying materials, DEC and ANTHC will consider all materials normally suitable for the project based on sound engineering practices and project requirements.
( b ) Contracts for procurement must contain applicable contract provisions listed at Appendix II to 2 CFR part 200.
( c ) For grants proposed to be administered directly by applicants eligible under § 1784.8(a)(1), the requirements outlined in 7 CFR part 1780, subpart C will be met by those eligible applicants with the exception of the following requirements: ( 1 ) Preliminary engineering reports and Environmental Reports (§ 1780.55). Refer to the requirements of this subpart and subpart C § 1784.22(n).
( 2 ) Metering devices in § 1780.57(m).
( 3 ) Utility Purchase Contracts in § 1780.62.
( 4 ) Sewage treatment and bulk water sales contracts in § 1780.63.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7441 LARRY MCLEOD, a/k/a Larry Pully, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEAN R. WALKER, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-195-1-MU) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry McLeod, Appellant Pro Se. Mary S. Mercer, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Larry McLeod appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McLeod v. Walker , No. CA-01- 195-1-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 247.10 Distribution and use of CSFP commodities. ( a ) *What are the requirements for distributing CSFP commodities to participants?* The local agency must distribute a package of commodities to participants each month, or a two-month supply of commodities to participants every other month, in accordance with the food package guide rates established by FNS.
( b ) *What must the local agency do to ensure that commodities are distributed only to CSFP participants?* The local agency must require each participant, or participant's proxy, to present some form of identification before distributing commodities to that person.
( c ) *What restrictions apply to State and local agencies in the distribution of CSFP commodities?* State and local agencies must not require, or request, that participants make any payments, or provide any materials or services, in connection with the receipt of CSFP commodities. State and local agencies must not use the distribution of CSFP commodities as a means of furthering the political interests of any person or party.
( d ) *What are the restrictions for the use of CSFP commodities?* CSFP commodities may not be used for outreach, refreshments, or for any purposes other than distribution to, and nutrition education for, CSFP participants.
EXHIBIT 4.6



 












Exhibit 4.6




Summary of Employment Arrangements




between Bayer Aktiengesellschaft




and Klaus Kühn







Term: K. Kühn was appointed member of the Board of Management of the Company by the
Supervisory Board effective May 1, 2002. The term will expire on April 30, 2007.


Compensation: The aggregate remuneration of K. Kühn for 2004 is comprised of the following
elements:



Base salary: EUR 408,417. K. Kühn also received remuneration in kind totaling EUR 25,348
and consisting mainly of amounts such as the value assigned to the use of a company car for
taxation purposes.



Fixed supplement: EUR 170,647



Variable bonus: EUR 771,120 (determined by attainment of the group cash flow target)



Stock option rights: K. Kühn received a total of 6,735 option rights on the basis of his
own investments. The options from this tranche had a market value of EUR 212,355 at the closing
date.




Retirement: K. Kühn is entitled to receive pension up from the age of 60. The yearly
pension entitlement is based on at least 30% of the sum of the last yearly base salary and fixed
supplement. This percentage increases over time depending on years of service as a Board member and
determines the final target pension level which is capped at 80%. These amounts are in addition to
any amounts received as a result of his participation in Bayer’s Employee Pension Plan (See Item
6).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 1:02-CR-29-MMP/AK

RAYMOND REED, JR.,

and

SHELIA GILLINS, 

Defendants(s).

 /

O R D E R

This cause came before the Court for an initial appearance on a petition filed by the 

United States Probation Office charging the Defendants Raymond Reed and Shelia Gillins with 

violating the terms of their pre trial release and failure to appear for sentencing. Notice was 

given that Sentencing in this cause is set for February 21, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. for 

Defendant, Raymond Reed, and at 10:30 a.m. for Defendant, Shelia Gillins, before the 

Honorable Maurice M. Paul. 

Defense counsel, Tom Miller and Caridad Gonzalez, joined in a ore tenus motion asking 

the Court enter an order directing the United States Probation Office to provide newly appointed 

counsel with a copy of the Pre Sentence Report. The government had no objection to this 

request. 

 According, it is ORDERED:

That the ore tenus motion for the United States Probation Office to provide 

Counsels’ Tom Miller and Caridad Gonzalez, with a copy of the Pre Sentence Report is 

GRANTED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of December, 2006. 

 s/. A. KORNBLUM 

 ALLAN KORNBLUM

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cr-00029-MP-GRJ Document 76 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 1
II 

Calendar No. 192 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2009 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 

Received 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 

Read the first time 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from enforcing 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the 

Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. 

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 ‘‘Keep the IRS Off Your 

5 Health Care Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2009 PCS 

1 (1) On May 10, 2013, the Internal Revenue 

2 Service admitted that it singled out advocacy groups, 

3 based on ideology, seeking tax-exempt status. 

4 (2) This action raises pertinent questions about 

5 the agency’s ability to implement and oversee Public 

6 Law 111–148 and Public Law 111–152. 

7 (3) This action could be an indication of future 

8 Internal Revenue Service abuses in relation to Public 

9 Law 111–148 and Public Law 111–152 given that 

10 it is their responsibility to enforce a key provision, 

11 the individual mandate. 

12 (4) Americans accept the principle that pa13 tients, families, and doctors should be making med14 ical decisions, not the Federal Government. 

15 SEC. 3. PROHIBITING ENFORCEMENT OF PPACA AND 

16 HCERA. 

17 The Secretary of the Treasury, or any delegate of the 

18 Secretary, shall not implement or enforce any provisions 

19 of or amendments made by Public Law 111–148 or 111– 

20 152. 

Passed the House of Representatives August 2, 

2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 192 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2009 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from enReconciliation Act of 2010. Care Act and the Health Care and Education forcing the Patient Protection and Affordable 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2005-2238.

#### State v. Luckett.

Cuyahoga App. No. 85677, 2005-Ohio-5199. Reported at 108 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2006-Ohio-665, 842 N.E.2d 1054. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
#### In the Matter of Joseph F., Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated June 22, 1977, which, after a fact-finding hearing, adjudged appellant to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the Division for Youth, Title III. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and petition dismissed. The testimony of the two infant witnesses, Michael Pegúese, age 14, and Glensley Emer, age 11, has been held by this court, on the prior appeal by appellant’s corespondent; Osvaldo M. *(Matter of Osvaldo M.,*65 AD2d 573), to be internally inconsistent and confusing as to what actually happened on the day of the incident, and thus insufficient to support the findings of the Family Court. There being no other probative evidence of appellant’s involvement in the crime, the instant petition must, accordingly, be dismissed. Mangano, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.686 Additional grants.

An additional HPG grant may be made when the grantee has achieved or nearly achieved the goals established for the previous or existing grant. The grantee must file a preapplication for the current fiscal year which will be processed and compared under the project selection criteria to others submitted at that time.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ROBERT LEE HONG,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20cv62-MW/HTC

MARK INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 9, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections 

to the report and recommendation, ECF No. 10. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, over Plaintiff’s

objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This 

case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) as 

malicious for Plaintiff’s abuse of the judicial process.” The Clerk shall also close 

the file. 

SO ORDERED on April 9, 2020.

s/ MARK E. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 185 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 101 

East Pecan Street in Sherman, Texas, as the ‘‘Paul 

Brown United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 185 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States courthouse located at 101 East 

3 Pecan Street in Sherman, Texas, shall be known and des4 ignated as the ‘‘Paul Brown United States Courthouse’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

8 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

9 to be a reference to the ‘‘Paul Brown United States Court10 house’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 22, 

2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 185 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located 

the ‘‘Paul Brown United States Courthouse’’. at 101 East Pecan Street in Sherman, Texas, as
#### Bradford Board of Education, Appellant, v Anthony J. Savino, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Judgment unanimously modified by striking the third decretal paragraph and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Same memorandum as in *Matter of Savino v Bradford Cent. School Dist. Bd. of Educ.,*Appeal No. 1 (75 AD2d 994). (Appeal from judgment of Steuben Supreme Court—declaratory judgment.) Present—Simons, J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
Appeal No. 78-338.

#### Orlando D. Capalbo *et ux. v.*Robert E. Brunelle *et ux.*

This is an automobile negligence action which arises out of an intersectional collision. Traffic along the highway upon which the Brunelle vehicle was proceeding was controlled by a stop sign that required the Brunelle vehicle to come to a full stop before it entered the intersection. The vehicle failed to come to the requisite halt.

On November 9, 1979, the defendants, through counsel, appeared before us in response to our order to show cause why their appeal from a grant by a Superior Court justice of the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial should not be dismissed. The trial justice’s ruling was based upon his finding that the jury’s award was “grossly inadequate” and its determination *900as to the percentage of fault attributable to the plaintiff “was disproportionate to the evidence as the Court views it in the exercise of his independent judgment.”

*Capalbo <b- Capalbo, Thomas J. Capalbo, Thomas J. Capalbo, Jr.,*for plaintiffs. *Carroll, Kelly ir Murphy, Dennis S. Baluch,*for defendants.

After considering the defendants’ oral argument and supplemental brief, we find that no cause has been shown. Consequently, the defendants’ appeal is denied and dismissed, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for a new trial.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40916

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ANTONIO LARIUS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-500-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Antonio Larius raises an

argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405

F.3d 270, 277-78 (5th Cir. 2005), which held that the North Carolina offense of

taking indecent liberties with a child constitutes “sexual abuse of a minor” and

thus is a crime of violence for purposes of the 16-level enhancement under

United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Larius’s motion for

summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 6, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 12-40916 Document: 00512136694 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2013
Exhibit
10.27


 


Summary of
The Medicines Company Board of Director Compensation


 


On December 14, 2004, the Board of Directors
(the “Board”) of The Medicines Company (the “Company”) adopted new terms of
compensation for its non-employee directors as described below.  The new compensation arrangements became
effective on January 1, 2005.


 


Annual Retainer, Meeting Fees and
Expenses


 


Each of the Company’s non-employee directors will
receive an annual retainer of $25,000, payable on a quarterly basis.  In addition, each non-employee director will
receive meeting fees of $3,000 for each meeting of the Board attended in person
and $500 for each meeting of the Board attended by telephone.  Directors will also be reimbursed for expenses
in connection with their attendance at meetings of the Board.


 


Option Grants


 


Each non-employee director will be granted
non-statutory stock options under the Company’s 2004 stock incentive plan to
purchase:


 


•                  20,000 shares of the Company’s common
stock on the date of his or her initial election to the Board (the “Initial
Options”); and


 


•                  15,000 shares of the Company’s common
stock on the date of each annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders (the “Annual
Options”), except if such non-employee director was initially elected to the Board
at such annual meeting.


 


These options will have an exercise price
equal to the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the Nasdaq National Market on the date of grant and will have a
ten year term.  The Initial Options will
vest in 36 equal monthly installments beginning on the date one month after the
grant date.  The Annual Options will vest
in 12 equal monthly installments beginning on the date one month after the date
of grant.  All vested options will be
exercisable at any time prior to the first anniversary of the date the director
ceases to be a director.


 


Committee Service


 


Each member of a committee of the Board will also
receive meeting fees of $1,500 for each committee meeting attended in person
and $500 for each committee meeting attended by telephone.  The chairman of the Audit Committee will
receive $8,000 annually, and the chairman of each of the other standing
committees of the Board (currently, the Compensation Committee and the
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee) will receive $4,000 annually, to
be paid on a quarterly basis.