alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

 

RECEIPT OF DELIVERY

 DATE: 01/04/2011 

Receipt of Delivery 

TO: The Honorable John Boehner 

 Speaker of the House of Representatives 

 The Capitol, H-209 

 Washington, D.C. 20515 

FROM: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1806A 

 Washington, DC 20460 

TITLE(S) OF DOCUMENTS: 

1. Alaska: Adequacy of Alaska’s Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program [FRL # 9247-6, Region 

10] Direct Final Rule 

2. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Rules and 

Regulations for Control of Air Pollution; Permitting of Grandfathered and Electing Electric Generating 

Facilities [FRL # 9248-9, Region 6] Final Rule 

3. Guidelines for Awarding Clean Water Act Section 319 Base Grants to Indian Tribes [FRL # 9247-8, 

OW] Final Rule 

4. Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Second Group of Chemicals [FRL # 8846-9, 

OCSPP] Final Rule 

 

RECEIVED BY: ______________________________ Date:________________ 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

RECEIPT OF DELIVERY

 DATE: 01/04/2011 

Receipt of Delivery 

TO: The Honorable Joseph Biden, Jr. 

 President of the Senate 

 The Capitol, S-212 

 Washington, DC 20510 

FROM: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1806A 

 Washington, DC 20460 

TITLE(S) OF DOCUMENTS: 

1. Alaska: Adequacy of Alaska’s Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program [FRL # 9247-6, 

Region 10] Direct Final Rule 

2. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Rules and 

Regulations for Control of Air Pollution; Permitting of Grandfathered and Electing Electric Generating 

Facilities [FRL # 9248-9, Region 6] Final Rule 

3. Guidelines for Awarding Clean Water Act Section 319 Base Grants to Indian Tribes [FRL # 9247-8, 

OW] Final Rule 

4. Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Second Group of Chemicals [FRL # 8846-9, 

OCSPP] Final Rule 

RECEIVED BY: ____________________________ Date:________________ 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

RECEIPT OF DELIVERY

 DATE: 01/04/2011 

Receipt of Delivery 

 

 

TO: General Counsel 

 Government Accountability Office 

 Room 7175 

 441 G Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20548 

FROM: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1806A 

 Washington, DC 20460 

TITLE(S) OF DOCUMENTS: 

1. Alaska: Adequacy of Alaska’s Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program [FRL # 9247-6, 

Region 10] Direct Final Rule 

2. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Rules and 

Regulations for Control of Air Pollution; Permitting of Grandfathered and Electing Electric Generating 

Facilities [FRL # 9248-9, Region 6] Final Rule 

3. Guidelines for Awarding Clean Water Act Section 319 Base Grants to Indian Tribes [FRL # 9247-8, 

OW] Final Rule 

4. Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Second Group of Chemicals [FRL # 8846-9, 

OCSPP] Final Rule 

RECEIVED BY: ___________________________ Date:________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       1,912,560
<SECURITIES>                                31,566,526
<RECEIVABLES>                                  196,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,109,161
<PP&E>                                      32,405,705
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,515,135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              59,630,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,014,176
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  58,616,273
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                59,630,449
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,406,403
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,349,617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,056,786
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,056,786
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,056,786
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 29.1124 Rule 18.

Any lot of mature tobacco in lemon or orange color containing 20 percent or more of greenish tobacco, or any lot which is not green but which contains 20 percent or more of greenish and green tobacco combined shall be designated by the color symbol “V.”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION

Case No. 3:19-md-2885

Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER REGARDING 

CENSUS FORM DATA USE

There is a Bankruptcy hearing on Bar Date set for March 22, 2023. 

During the February 27, 2023, bankruptcy hearing, Counsel for Aearo indicated 

that they intended to file a motion for extension of exclusivity and intend to file a 

motion for estimation this week to be heard during that March 22 hearing. Given 

this representation and to keep the parties on equal footing assuming that 

Debtors’ estimation motion relies on Census Data available to 3M and the Aearo 

Debtors, Plaintiffs’ Leadership seeks an order allowing MDL Leadership to 

share the following information with any MDL Party’s bankruptcy professionals 

including the Tort Claimants’ bankruptcy professionals:

• Data gathered by MDL-Centrality from Plaintiffs’ Census Forms;

• Plaintiff ID information for Plaintiffs in Waves 1 thru 4;

• Data gathered in sample of 1% of MDL plaintiffs’ audiograms; and

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3683 Filed 02/27/23 Page 1 of 4
• List of claimants who have submitted Touhy requests and any data

produced by the Government in response to any such requests.

DATED: February 27, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & 

OVERHOLTZ, PLLC

/s/ Bryan F. Aylstock 

Bryan F. Aylstock 

Jennifer Hoekstra 

baylstock@awkolaw.com

jhoekstra@awkolaw.com

17 East Main Street, Suite 200

Pensacola, FL 32502

Phone: (850) 202-1010

Facsimile: (850) 916-7449

SEEGER WEISS LLP

Christopher A. Seeger

Maxwell H. Kelly 

cseeger@seegerweiss.com

mkelly@seegerweiss.com

55 Challenger Road

Sixth Floor

Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 

Phone: 973-693-9100

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3683 Filed 02/27/23 Page 2 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on February 27, 2023, Plaintiffs’ 

Leadership conferred with counsel for 3M on the issue raised in this motion.

Counsel for 3M does not oppose the instant motion.

By: /s/ Bryan F. Aylstock 

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3683 Filed 02/27/23 Page 3 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that on February 27, 2023, a

true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed and served via CM/ECF on all

counsel of record.

By: /s/ Bryan F. Aylstock 

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3683 Filed 02/27/23 Page 4 of 4
#### § 29.2314 Unsound (U).

Damaged under 20 percent. (See Rule 20, § 29.2411.)

[37 FR 13521, July 11, 1972. Redesignated at 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC

Regulatory Docket No. 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR EXEMPTION OF:

Christopher L Parrish 3331167 ATP CFI CFII

Droneography360 LLC

I have made minor corrections to the original submission from Sept 1, 2015. I 

had originally based the altitude on the proposed UAS Rules from the FAA 

Website. However, in keeping with the current approvals I have adjusted our 

petition to 400 AGL. I have also adjusted the company name to reflect what is 

currently on file with the State of Colorado. “Droneography360 LLC. 

Small edits for missing words and or punctuation have also been made. 

However, materially this additional information is the same except for the 

changes noted above. 

As an aside note. I have been unable to upload the documents due to size and 

will include links to the DJI Website where the documents can be downloaded. I 

would surmise that you already have the operating manuals and specifications 

for the DJI Phantom 3. However, in an effort to be as complete as possible the 

links will be provided. 

Thanks,

Christopher L. Parrish

3331167 ATP CFI CFII
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.21  


 
 

ACCELLENT INC.
  MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURING, INC.
  SUMMARY OF
  DIRECTOR COMENSATION ARRANGMENTS    
    


        Pursuant to the Amended and Restated Shareholders' Agreement dated June 30, 2004 entered into between Accellent Inc. ("Accellent") and certain of
its shareholders, the Board of Directors of Medical Device Manufacturing, Inc. (the "Company") is comprised of the same members as the Accellent Board of Directors. Directors who are employees
of Accellent or its subsidiaries, including the Company, receive no additional cash or equity compensation for service on the Boards of Directors of Accellent or the Company. All Directors are
reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses related to attendance at Boards of Director and Boards of Director committee meetings. H. Stephen Cookston and T. Quinn
Spitzer, Jr. each receive annual cash compensation of $30,000 for their service as directors of Accellent and the Company. 


        Directors
do not receive additional cash or equity compensation for service on committees of Accellent's or the Company's Board of Directors. 











QuickLinks


ACCELLENT INC. MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURING, INC. SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMENSATION ARRANGMENTS
#### § 29.3068 Tannish-red color (FR).

A light red shaded toward tan.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 47 FR 51722, Nov. 17, 1982, 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984 and 51 FR 40407, Nov. 7, 1986]
Exhibit 8

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

Name

Jurisdiction of Incorporation

Percentage Ownership



Feishang Mining Holdings Limited

British Virgin Islands

100% (held by Registrant)

Wuhu Feishang Mining Development Co. Ltd.

Peoples Republic of China

100% (held by Feishang Mining)

Yunnan Feishang Mining Development Co. Ltd.

Peoples Republic of China

100% (held by Wuhu)

Yangpu Lianzhong Mining Co. Ltd.

Peoples Republic of China

100% (held by China Coal)

Mark Faith Technology Development Limited

Hong Kong Special

60% (held by Registrant)

Administrative Region

Bayannaoer City Feishang Copper Company

Peoples Republic of China

100% (held by Mark Faith)

Limited

Sunwide Capital Limited

British Virgin Islands

100% (held by Registrant)

Silver Moon Technologies Limited

British Virgin Islands

80% (held by Registrant)

FMH Corporate Services Inc.

Florida

100% (held by Registrant)

China Coal Mining Investments Limited

Hong Kong Special

100% (held by Registrant)

Administrative Region

Newhold Investments Limited

British Virgin Islands

100% (held by Registrant)

Feishang Yongfu Mining Limited

Hong Kong Special

100% (held by Newhold)

Administrative Region

Hainan Yangpu Shuanghu

Peoples Republic of China

100% (held by Feishang

Enterprise Development Co Ltd

Yongfu)

Guizhou Yongfu Mining Co Ltd

Peoples Republic of China

70% (held by Yangpu

Shuanghu)

Feishang Management and Consulting Co.

Peoples Republic of China

100% (held by Yunnan

Limited

Mining)
#### HANSHAFT et al. v. MESA et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

Trover and Conversion (§ 34*)—Actions—Variance.

In an action for the conversion of personal property installed by one of the defendants in the building owned by the others, evidence by the plaintiff that he showed to the owner of the building a conditional contract of sale of the property to the other defendant, and that he had an understanding that the owner should pay for the property as soon as it *150•was fixed, established a sale, and not a conversion, and the complaint should he dismissed.

[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Trover and Conversion, Cent. Dig. §§ 207-214; Dec. Dig. § 34.*]

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.

Action by Max Hanshaft and another against Albert R. Mesa and others. Judgment for the plaintiffs, and defendant Borchardt appeals.

Reversed, and complaint dismissed.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, PAGE, and BIJUR, JJ.

Henry S. Mansfield, of New York City, for appellants.

Allan A. Deutsch, of New York City, for respondents.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs sued for the purchase price of some machinery, which had been installed in an apartment owned by the defendant corporation. The appellant had contracted for its installation with the defendant Mesa. After the bulk of the plant had been delivered at appellant’s apartment house, plaintiff called and had an interview with Borchardt, and there claims to have exhibited to Borchardt, or at least to have notified him of the existence of, a conditional bill of sale from plaintiff to Mesa. If this were all, the judgment would be justified as matter of law; but plaintiffs went further, and testified that Borchardt “was to keep the plant with the understanding that we were to get our money as soon as he got these people to fix up the plant,” etc. Thus plaintiffs, on their own case, established a contract of sale between themselves and the appellant, and, the action being predicated' distinctly on conversion, the complaint should have been dismissed-

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.
```

[Federal Register: November 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 210)]
[Notices]               
[Page 67086]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no10-22]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 
Proposed Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Proposed subsequent arrangement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice has been issued under the authority of Section 131 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The 
Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement 
under the Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear 
Energy Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of Canada and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful 
Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the United States of America and the 
European Atomic Energy Community.
    This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 514,705.9 kg 
of U.S.-origin natural uranium hexafluoride (68.00% U), 350,000 kg of 
which is uranium, from Areva Resources Canada, Inc. (Areva Resources) 
in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, to URENCO in Almelo, Netherlands. 
The material, which is currently located at Areva Resources, will be 
transferred to URENCO-Almelo for enrichment and use as fuel in civilian 
nuclear power programs in the United States and France. The material 
was originally obtained by Areva Resources from the Feed Component 
Substitution Implementing Contract.
    In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement will 
not be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Dated: October 1, 2010.

    For the Department of Energy.
Thomas P. D'Agostino,
Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-27501 Filed 10-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-20054

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO RAMON LOPEZ, also known as Mario Ramos Lopez, also known as

Mario Lopez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-437-1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mario Ramon Lopez

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Lopez has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 26, 2010

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: 10-20054 Document: 00511274682 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2010
No. 10-20054

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 10-20054 Document: 00511274682 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2010
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60209

(Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EUGENE ERVIN; ERIC JEROME ERVIN,

also known as Sealed Defendant 2,

Defendants-Appellants.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:96-CR-61-BN-ALL

__________________________________________

December 19, 1997

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eugene Ervin and Eric Jerome Ervin appeal their convictions for jury tampering pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 1503. Bot h defendant s argue that the evidence was insufficient to prove that they

endeavored to influence a juror. The juror need not actually have been influenced. U nited States v.

Williams

, 874 F.2d 968, 981 (5th Cir. 1989). The Ervins need not have explicitly threatened Caston2

or have told Caston that he should acquit Culley. S ee United States v. Forrest

, 623 F.2d 1107, 1113-

14 (5th Cir. 1980). The evidence was sufficient.

Eugene Ervin argues that the district court committed reversible error in not g rant ing his

motion for new trial. The district court’s holding that the alleged newly discovered evidence would

be cumulative of that presented at trial and would not cha nge the outcom e of the tri al was not an

abuse of discretion. United States v. Sanchez-Sotelo , 8 F.3d 202, 212 (5th Cir. 1993).

Eric Ervin argues that the district court committed reversible error in failing to sustain his

objection to the admission of certain testimony by Vedale Williams as more prejudicial than probative

pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403. From the context of Williams’ testimony, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in allowing the quesitons as probative of Williams’ credibilit y. The court

determined that the probative value of the elicited testimony would not be substantially outweighed

by any possible speculative prejudicial effect. U nited States v. Pace

, 10 F.3d 1106, 1115-16 (5th Cir.

1993).

AFFIRMED.
98-1558.

#### State v. Troche.

Richland App. No. 96CA80. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
#### § 29.1049 Papery.

A term used to describe thin-bodied, oilless tobacco usually associated with whitish-lemon color.

[51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986; 51 FR 28687, Aug. 11, 1986]
Description of Compensation of Non-Employee Directors



 Exhibit 10.37 
  
 Description of Compensation of Non-Employee Directors 
  
 Each member of the Board of Directors who is not an employee of ICT Group, Inc. (the “Company”) will receive for fiscal year 2005
and thereafter, until changed by the Board of Directors, fees for service on the Company’s Board of Directors as listed in the table below. The members of the Board are also reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with attendance at
Board and committee meetings. 
  

				
	 Annual Fee
	  	$	25,000
	 Quarterly and special Board meetings attended in Person or by telephone
	  	$	2,500
	 Other telephonic meetings
	  	$	500
	 Committee Meetings – Chairmen
	  	$	2,000
	 Committee Meetings – members
	  	$	1,250

  
 Under the Company’s 1996
Non-Employee Directors Plan, each non-employee director receives, upon initial election to the Board, an option to purchase 15,000 shares of Common Stock. These initial options are exercisable with respect to fifty percent (50%) of the shares on the
date of grant and become exercisable with respect to the remaining fifty percent (50%) of the shares on the first anniversary of the date of grant if the director continues to be a member of the board of directors through that date. These initial
options have an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the Common Stock on the date of grant and expire ten years after issuance. In addition, each non-employee director is granted an option to purchase 5,000 shares of Common Stock on the
date of each annual meeting; these options vest on the first anniversary of the date of grant if the director continues to be a member of the board of directors through that date, have an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the Common
Stock on the date of grant and expire ten years after issuance.