alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE OF UTAH 

GARY R. HERBERT OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GREG BELL 

GOVERNOR SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 

84114-2220 

October 25,2011 

James B. Martin, Regional Administrator 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

Denver, Colorado 80202-1129 

Dear Mr. Martin, 

On May 3, 2011, the State of Utah transmitted to your office a recommendation that all 29 counties 

in Utah be designated as unclassifiable for the revised S02 National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) promulgated on June 3, 2010. That recommendation was based on proposed guidance under 

development by EPA requiring refined dispersion modeling as a basis for designation as attainment, 

regardless of the amount of ambient air monitoring data available. At that time, Utah did not have refined 

dispersion modeling for any of the counties in question, although the State did have adequate ambient 

monitoring data for the Salt Lake - Davis County area. 

Since the time ofthat recommendation, Utah has reviewed the final rule establishing the NAAQS, 

and EPA's acknowledgement, as published in the Federal Register on January 26,2011, that "nowhere in 

the preamble (much less in any promulgated regulation) does EPA state that modeling must be used for 

designating areas as attainment, nonattainment or unclassifiable." 76 Fed. Reg. 4,792. Utah concurs with 

EPA's declaration therein. Because Salt Lake County remains a nonattainment area for the initial 1971 

S02 NAAQS, Utah has a long-standing and robust S02 monitoring network in Salt Lake County, extending 

into ndghbor~ng Davis County. For the p2st 29 years, at none of those monitoring stations has the ambient 

S02 concentration ever violated either the initial or revised standard. 

Therefore, based on the above facts, Utah hereby changes its initial area designations 

recommendation for the June 3, 2010, S02 NAAQS. The State of Utah recommends that, based on decades 

of ambient monitoring data that are well below the applicable S02 NAAQS, Salt Lake and Davis County be 

designated as "attainment" areas, and the remaining 27 counties in Utah be designated as "unclassifiable" 

based on a lack of sufficient ambient monitoring data. 

If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact Bryce Bird, Director of the Division of 

Air Quality, at (801) 536-4064. 

Sincerely, 

RECEIVED ~(L.~~-I- U.S. EPA Region 8 Gary R. Herbert RA's Office Governor 

OCT 28 2011
Exhibit
        23.1
 
 Consent
        of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 We
        have
        issued our reports dated March 7, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial
        statements and schedules ( which
        reports expressed an unqualified opinion and contain an explanatory paragraph
        relating to the adoption of Statement
        of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R, *Share-Based
        Payment,* effective
        January 1, 2006) and
        management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
        reporting included in the Annual Report of Theragenics Corporation  on
        Form
        10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006. We hereby consent to the
        incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements
        of
        Theragenics Corporation on Form S-8, file numbers 33-40737, 333-48136,
        333-15313, 333-40653, 333-64801, and 333-136640, and on Form S-3
        333-127551.
 
  /s/
        GRANT
        THORNTON LLP
 
 Atlanta,
        Georgia
 March
        7,
        2007
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-07-14T20:14:24-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
Amendment No. 3 to Duke Energy Executive Cash Balance Plan



 Exhibit 10-7.3 
  
 DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 
 EXECUTIVE CASH BALANCE
PLAN 
 (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 1999) 
  
 AMENDMENT 3 
  
 Pursuant to Section 8 of the Duke Energy Corporation Executive Cash Balance Plan, as amended (“Plan”), Duke Energy Corporation
(“Corporation”) hereby amends the Plan, effective January 1, 2001, in the following respects only: 
  

	1.	The Company’s Policy Committee is substituted for references to the Management Committee wherever appearing in the Plan. 

  

	2.	Clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 2.3 of the Plan, are amended in their entireties to read as follows: 

  

	 	(iii)	the consummation of a merger, consolidation, reorganization or similar corporate transaction, which has been approved by the shareholders of Duke Energy Corporation, whether or not
Duke Energy Corporation is the surviving corporation in such transaction, other than a merger, consolidation, or reorganization that would result in the voting securities of Duke Energy Corporation outstanding immediately prior thereto continuing to
represent (either by remaining outstanding or by being converted into voting securities of the surviving entity) at least fifty percent (50%) of the combined voting power of the voting securities of Duke Energy Corporation (or such surviving entity)
outstanding immediately after such merger, consolidation or reorganization. 

  

	 	(iv)	 the consummation of (A) the sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of Duke Energy Corporation or (B) a complete liquidation or
dissolution of Duke Energy 



  










	 	 
Corporation, which has been approved by the shareholders of Duke Energy Corporation; 


  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment to the Plan is executed on behalf of the
Corporation this 21st day of December, 2000. 
  

			
	 DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION

		
	 By:
	 	/s/    CHRISTOPHER C.
ROLFE        
	 Its:
	 	Vice President
	 	 	Corporate Human Resources
97-1197.

#### State ex rel. Horvath v. State Teachers Retirement Bd.

Franklin App. No, 96APE08-983. Reported at 83 Ohio St.3d 67, 697 N.E.2d 644. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 4:03cr25-MW/CAS

DAVID WAYNE JACKSON,

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Recommendation, ECF No. 65, and has also reviewed de novo Defendant’s

objections to the report and recommendation, ECF No. 68. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

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

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

Motion to Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ECF No. 55, is DENIED. A 

Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.” The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on March 21, 2019. 

s/ MARK E. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.56    
    


 
 

Summary of Compensation of
  Certain Executive Officers    
    


        The following table sets forth the 2005 and 2004 annual base salary rates of (a) United's named executive officers for 2003, determined by reference to
United's definitive proxy statement dated March 23, 2004, and (b) the individuals anticipated to be included as named executive officers for 2004 in the definitive proxy statement United
expects to file with the SEC in April 2005 (the "2005 Proxy Statement"): 



	Name and Position
 
	 	Year
	 	Base Salary

	Richard W. Gochnauer	 	2005	 	$	802,125
	 	President and Chief Executive Officer	 	2004	 	 	775,000
	

P. Cody Phipps	
 	

2005	
 	
$	

300,000
	 	Senior Vice President, Operations	 	2004	 	 	286,500
	

Kathleen S. Dvorak	
 	

2005	
 	
$	

283,000
	 	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer	 	2004	 	 	273,500
	

Mark J. Hampton	
 	

2005	
 	
$	

282,000
	 	Senior Vice President, Marketing	 	2004	 	 	261,300
	

John T. Sloan	
 	

2005	
 	
$	

269,000
	 	Senior Vice President, Human Resources	 	2004	 	 	260,000
	

Joseph R. Templet	
 	

2005	
 	
$	

260,000
	 	Senior Vice President, Trade Development	 	2004	 	 	253,800
	

Stephen A. Schultz	
 	

2005	
 	
$	

237,300
	 	President, Lagasse, Inc. and Vice President, Category Management, Janitorial/Sanitation	 	2004	 	 	228,150













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.56


Summary of Compensation of Certain Executive Officers
#### §§ 2003.3-2003.4 [Reserved]
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

3M COMPANY, Case No.: 4:20-cv-00225-AW-MAF

Plaintiff,

v. 

1 IGNITE CAPITAL, LLC a/k/a

1 IGNITE CAPITAL PARTNERS, 

INSTITUTIONAL FINANCIAL 

SALES LLC and AUTA LOPES, 

an individual,

Defendants.

________________________/

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i), Plaintiff 3M 

Company (“Plaintiff”) hereby notifies this Court that Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses 

the above-captioned litigation with prejudice. 

Dated: May 15, 2020

By: MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

/s/ Joseph M. Wasserkrug 

Joseph M. Wasserkrug 

Florida Bar No.: 112274

jwasserkrug@mwe.com 

333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 4500

Miami, FL 33131-4336

T: 305.347.6501 | F: 305.675.8403

Counsel for Plaintiff 3M Company
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on May 15, 2020, I electronically filed the 

foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which 

will send notification of such filing to counsel or parties authorized to receive 

electronic filings in this case and the foregoing document was served via email upon 

Auta Lopes at auta.lopes@gmail.com. 

/s/ Joseph M. Wasserkrug

Joseph M. Wasserkrug (FBN 112274)

DM_US 168639048-3.099922.0014
Case 3:20-cv-02653-MCR-GRJ Document 3 Filed 02/07/20 Page 3 of 12

AO 440 (Rev, 06/12) Summons ina Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Florida

KENNETH EDMONDS

Plaintiffis)

v. Civil Action No. 3:20ev2653-MCR/GRJ

3M COMPANY, et al.

eee ee ere eee

Defendant(s)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant's name and address) 3M Occupational Safety LLC
c/o Registered Agent Corporation Service Company
2345 Rice St., Suite 230
Roseville MN 55113

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney,
whose name and address are: Michael W. Gaines, Esq.

Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
Goodlettsville, Tennessee 37072
Phone #: (615) 859-1996

Tf you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS,
CLERK OF COURT

/s/Donwa Bajgile

Date: 2/7/2020 —_
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

‘

a ed:
% :

1
oe
“eis


X

Case 3:20-cv-02653-MCR-GRJ Document 3 Filed 02/07/20 Page 4 of 12

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

A, Signature: (Addressee or Agent)

4

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 ())

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

CT personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) sor

&1 I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with fname)

. a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

4 served the summons on (name of individual) NAc Wa sf, Ws = ; who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) BM Occ ote Q

Sater yee on (date) February \8,aea0 5

(3 [returned the summons unexecuted because or

Other (specifiy.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Tin A Broce)

Server's signature

Date: 3\ lo \acoe

Restricted Delivery? Service Type

CERTIFIED jowden. Esq. _

name and title

(Extra Feo) [_] Yes

Article Number

TT

9414 7118 9956 1223 1917 68

|
{
|
be 200, Goodlettsville, TN 37072

's address

COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
B. Received By: (Please Print Clearly)

LLU

Bin Deli

D. Addressee's Address croton rem astess Uses by snioy | Afticle Addressed To:

3M Occupational Safety LLC
clo: Corporation Service Company
2345 Rice St., Suite 230

ity

Delivery Adaroas Roseville MN 55113-3769

rn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J

State ZiP +4 Coda
#### § 29.9201 Terms defined.

As used in this subpart and in all instructions, forms, and documents in connection therewith, the words and phrases hereinafter defined shall have the indicated meanings so assigned.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3401

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3401 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3401.17 Review criteria.

(a) Federally funded research supported under these provisions shall be designed to, among other things, accomplish one or more of the following purposes:

(1) Improve management of rangelands as an integrated system and/or watershed;

(2) Remedy unstable or unsatisfactory rangeland conditions;

(3) Increase revegetation and/or rehabilitation of rangelands;

(4) Examine the health of rangelands; and

(5) Define economic parameters associated with rangelands.

(b) In carrying out its review under § 3401.16, the peer review panel will use the following form upon which the evaluation criteria to be used are enumerated, unless, pursuant to § 3401.7(a), different evaluation criteria are specified in the annual solicitation of proposals for a particular program:

### Peer Panel Scoring Form

Proposal Identification No.

Institution and Project Title

### I. Basic Requirement:

Proposal falls within guidelines? __________ Yes __________ No. If no, explain why proposal does not meet guidelines under comment section of this form.

### II. Selection Criteria:

| | Score 1-10 | Weight factor | Score X weight factor | Comments |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1. Overall scientific and technical quality of proposal | | 10 | | |
| 2. Scientific and technical quality of the approach | | 10 | | |
| 3. Relevance and importance of proposed research to solution of specific areas of inquiry | | 6 | | |
| 4. Feasibility of attaining objectives; adequacy of professional training and experience, facilities and equipment | | 5 | | |

Score

Summary Comments

(c) Proposals satisfactorily meeting the guidelines will be evaluated and scored by the peer review panel for each criterion utilizing a scale of 1 through 10. A score of one (1) will be considered low and a score of ten (10) will be considered high for each selection criterion. A weighted factor is used for each criterion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMO
INSTRUMENT SYSTEMS INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
MARCH 29, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                         432,256
<SECURITIES>                                     7,477
<RECEIVABLES>                                  383,760
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,711
<INVENTORY>                                    285,227
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,192,202
<PP&E>                                         306,107
<DEPRECIATION>                                  76,741
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,384,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          680,545
<BONDS>                                        508,597
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,791
<OTHER-SE>                                     764,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,384,121
<SALES>                                        329,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               329,120
<CGS>                                          173,448
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  173,448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,407
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,084
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,460
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 53,495
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,770
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,587
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,587
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
        

</TABLE>
98- 962.

#### Earley v. Keenan.

Cuyahoga App. No. 74334. Reported at 83 Ohio St.3d 1415, 698 N.E.2d 1005. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
#### In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases.

[Cite as *In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases,*109 Ohio St.3d 450, 2006-Ohio-2626.]

(Submitted May 24, 2006

Decided May 31, 2006.)

{¶ 1} The following dispositions of currently pending appeals are hereby entered based on our decision in *State v. Mathis,*109 Ohio St.3d 54, 2006-Ohio-855, 846 N.E.2d 1.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

{¶ 2} The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are affirmed as to their holdings vacating the defendants’ sentences and remanding for new resentencing hearings, and the causes are remanded to the trial courts for resentencing consistent with our opinion in *State v. Foster,*109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470:

{¶ 3} 2004-1265. *State v. Embry,*Cuyahoga App. No. 82998, 2004-Ohio-2986, 2004 WL 1277520.

{¶ 4} 2004-1522. *State v. Diaz,*Cuyahoga App. No. 81857, 2004-Ohio-3954, 2004 WL 1688437.

{¶ 5} 2004-1525. *State v. Zueco,*Cuyahoga App. No. 83602, 2004-Ohio-4095, 2004 WL 1753140.

{¶ 6} 2005-1663. *State v. Rivera,*Cuyahoga App. No. 85118, 2005-Ohio-3833, 2005 WL 1791566.

II

{¶ 7} The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases affirming the defendants’ sentences are reversed, and the causes are remanded to the trial courts for resentencing consistent with our opinion in *State v. Foster.*If propositions of law are noted, such reversals apply only to those portions of the judgments of the courts of appeals as are implicated by the applicable propositions of law. These cases were previously, but no longer are, held for our decision in *State v. Foster:*

*451{¶ 8} 2005-1503. *State v. Pina,*Hancock App. No. 5-04-55, 2005-Ohio-3231, 2005 WL 1503950. Accepted on Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 9} 2005-1708. *State v. Crim,*Cuyahoga App. No. 85290, 2005-Ohio-4129, 2005 WL 1910669. Accepted on Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 10} 2005-1775. *State v. McQueen,*Cuyahoga App. No. 85330, 2005-Ohio-4013, 2005 WL 1846990. Accepted on Proposition of Law No. III.
#### § 3200.1 Purpose.

This Part sets forth the procedures to be utilized by Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the acquisition and transfer of excess property to the 1890 Land Grant Institutions (including Tuskegee University), 1994 Land Grant Institutions, and the Hispanic-Serving Institutions in support of research, educational, technical, and scientific activities or for related programs as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 2206a. Title to the personal property shall pass to the institution.
#### § 205.1 Meaning of words.

For the purpose of the regulations in this subpart, words in the singular form shall be deemed to impart the plural and vice versa, as the case may demand.
Continuing Abatement Order filed November 3, 2022

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 22
- 00078
- CV

____________ MINAZ HASSANALI AND WESTMONT HOSPITALITY GROUP , Appellant s V. MAHENDRA KAPADIA AND WESTCHASE INTERESTS, LLC , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021
- 51498



### CONTINUING AB ATEMENT ORDER
On August 30 , 2022 , we abated this appeal for sixty da ys
. On Octobe r 28 , 2022 , appellant s filed an unopposed motion r equest ing t h at we continue the abatement of this appeal

. Th at motio n is GRANTED

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket until December 30 , 2022

. The appeal will be reinstated on this

c ourt’s active docket at that t ime, or when the parties file a motion to dismis s the appe al o r other dis positive motion. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by any party, or the court may reinstate the appeal o n its own motion.
PER CURIAM
P a nel Consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Each of theundersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Bidz.com, Inc.(“Bidz.com”), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Bidz.com on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of Bidz.com.

 
| Date:  May 13,  2010 | By     | /s/  David Zinberg       |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                                |   | David  Zinberg           |
|                                |   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|                                |   |                     |
| Date:  May 13,  2010 | By     | /s/  Lawrence Kong       |
|                                |   | Lawrence  Kong           |
|                                |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----