alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1708.102 Types of safety investigations. ( a ) The Board may initiate a preliminary safety inquiry or order a formal safety investigation.
( b ) A preliminary safety inquiry means any inquiry conducted by the Board or its staff, other than a formal investigation. Where it appears from a preliminary safety inquiry that a formal safety investigation is appropriate, the Board's staff will so recommend to the Board.
( c ) A formal safety investigation is instituted by an Order of Safety Investigation issued either after a recorded notational vote of Board Members or after convening a meeting in accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act and voting in open or closed session, as the case may be.
( d ) Orders of Safety Investigations will outline the basis for the investigation, the matters to be investigated, the Investigating Officer(s) designated to conduct the investigation, and their authority.
( e ) The Office of the General Counsel shall have primary responsibility for conducting and leading a formal safety investigation. The Investigating Officer(s) shall report to the Board.
( f ) Following a notational vote and in accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act, the Board or an individual Board Member authorized by the Board may hold such closed or open hearings and sit and act at such times and places, and require the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such evidence as the Board or an authorized member may find advisable, or exercise any other applicable authority as provided in the Board's enabling legislation. Each Board Member shall have full access to all information relating to the matter under investigation, including attendance at closed hearings.
( g ) Subpoenas in formal safety investigation hearings may be issued by the Chairman only after a notational vote of the Board. The Chairman may designate another Board Member to issue a subpoena. Subpoenas shall be served by any person designated by the Chairman, or otherwise as provided by law.
( h ) A determination of a decision or action authorized to the Board by these procedures shall only be made after a notational vote of the Board with each Board Member having one vote.
2007-1795.

#### State ex rel. Vaughn Industries, L.L.C. v. Reece.

In Prohibition. Reported at 116 Ohio St.3d 1212, 2007-Ohio-6670, 878 N.E.2d 1050. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied. Request for oral argument denied.

O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
§ 452.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part sets forth the standards, policies, and procedures that the Department of Energy uses for receiving, evaluating, and awarding bids in reverse auctions of production incentive payments for cellulosic biofuels under section 942 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16251).
( b ) Part 1024 of chapter X of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations shall not apply to actions taken under this part.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06cr198-WKW

)

RONALD MCQUEEN )

UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR REDUCTION 

FOR ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY

Comes now the United States of America, by and through Leura G. Canary, United States

Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and respectfully moves this Court to reduce by one

(1) level Defendant’s offense level based on Defendant’s acceptance of responsibility. As

grounds for this Motion, the United States avers as follows:

1. On August 15, 2006, an Indictment was filed against the Defendant.

2. The Defendant notified the United States of Defendant’s intent to plead guilty in

sufficient time to qualify for an additional one point offense level reduction. The

Defendant pled guilty to the Indictment on December 28, 2006.

3. Therefore, pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3E1.1(b), as

amended, the United States makes this formal motion for a one-level reduction in

Defendant’s offense level for acceptance of responsibility such that the total

reduction in offense level for Defendant’s acceptance of responsibility shall be

three (3) levels.

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that this motion be GRANTED.

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 46 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 3
2

Respectfully submitted this the 5th day of March, 2007.

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/Tommie Brown Hardwick

TOMMIE BROWN HARDWICK

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334) 223-7280

Fax: (334) 223-7135

E-mail: tommie.hardwick@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 46 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 2 of 3
3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 ) 

v. ) CR. NO. 2:06cr198-WKW 

 ) 

RONALD MCQUEEN ) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 5, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to: Susan G.

James, Esquire.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Tommie Brown Hardwick

TOMMIE BROWN HARDWICK

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334)223-7280

Fax: (334)223-7135

E-mail: tommie.hardwick@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 46 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 3 of 3
2010 Long Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Cascade Microtech, Inc. 
 2010 Long Term Incentive
Plan 
 Executive Officer Participants 
  

			
	Steven Sipowicz	 	Chief Financial Officer
	Eric Strid	 	Chief Technology Officer
	Steve Harris	 	VP, Engineering
	Paul O’Mara	 	VP, Sales and Customer Support
	Mike Kondrat	 	VP, Marketing
	Anand Nambiar	 	VP, Operations

 Performance Criteria 
 Target payouts for the participants will be based on a percentage of their base salaries, with the amount of the payout determined based on attainment of
planned levels of EBITDAS, cash preservation and the accomplishment of individual goals and objectives. The portion of the total bonus payout that is based on the different performance measures is as follows: EBITDAS – 30 percent; cash
preservation – 20 percent; individual goals and objectives – 50 percent. 
 Payout 
 The payout for the EBITDAS portion will be zero for EBITDAS below 50 percent of the EBITDAS target and 100 percent of the target payout at 100 percent of
the EBITDAS target, with amounts in between determined based on a linear function. The payout with respect to EBITDAS in excess of 100 percent of target will be determined based on the same linear function with a cap of 200 percent of the payout
target. The payout for the cash preservation portion will be zero for cash preservation below a cash target amount and 100 percent of the target payout at 100 percent of the cash target amount, with amounts in between determined based on a linear
function. The payout with respect to cash preservation in excess of 100 percent will be based on the same linear function with a cap of 200 percent of the payout target. The payout, if any, with respect to the achievement of EBITDAS and cash
preservation goals will be made in the form of restricted stock units vesting over four years. The payout, if any, with respect to the attainment of individual goals and objectives will be determined based on a goals and objectives score that takes
into account relative importance of the goals and other success criteria, and will be made in the form of stock options vesting over four years.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 28, 2013

s1021 

# Order

Clerk October 28, 2013

147294

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147294

COA: 311454

Wayne CC: 06

- 005849

- FH

TIMOTHY ANTONIO HAZELY

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 25, 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT former appellate counsel, Jay

Courtright, to file a supplemental brief addressing the reason(s) for his failure to file in

the trial court a timely motion to withdraw the defendant’s plea, and/or his failure to file

in the Court of Appeals, on direct review, a delayed application for leave to appeal within

the deadlines set forth in MCR 7.205(F), despite being appointed as counsel on

September 25, 2006, approximately two weeks after the defendant was sentenced.

Counsel shall file the supplemental brief within 28 days of the date of this order.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
#### § 1017.3 Policy.

The Department of Energy (DOE) strives to make information publicly available to the fullest extent possible. Therefore, this part must be interpreted and implemented to apply the minimum restrictions needed to protect the health and safety of the public or the common defense and security consistent with the requirement in section 148 of the Atomic Energy Act to prohibit the unauthorized dissemination of UCNI.
Subpart 2022.1 - Basic Labor Policies

Parent topic: PART 2022 - APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS

2022.101-1 General.

The Head of the Contracting Activity shall designate programs or requirements for which it is

necessary that contractors be required to notify the Government of actual or potential labor disputes

that are delaying or threaten to delay the timely contract performance. Contractor notification shall

be made in accordance with FAR 52.222-1, “Notice to the Government of Labor Disputes.”

2022.103-4 Approvals.

The agency approving official for contractor overtime is the contracting officer.
Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 3.1

 

**CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION**

** **

**OF**

** **

**AMERICAN HONDA RECEIVABLES LLC**

 

This Certificate of Formationof American Honda Receivables LLC(the “**Company**”),dated as of March 16, 2011, is duly executed and filed to form a limited liability company in accordance with the Delaware LimitedLiability Company Act (6 Del. C. §18-201, et seq.).

 

1.          Name.The name of the limited liability company is American Honda Receivables LLC.

 

2.          RegisteredOffice.   The address of its registered office in the State of Delaware is c/o The Corporation Trust Company,1209 Orange Street, in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle, 19801.

 

3.          RegisteredAgent.   The name and address of its registered agent for service of process in the State of Delaware is TheCorporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street, in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle, 19801.

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**,the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Formation of American Honda Receivables LLC as of the 16th day of March, 2011.

** **
* Pursuant to 5th 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 5th C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20182

Summary Calendar

O.D. VAN DUREN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ELIZABETH WATSON, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-97-CV-1664

December 29, 1998

Before JOHNSON, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

O. D. Van Duren, Texas prisoner # 667233, appeals from the district

court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(b). Van Duren contends that the district court erred in

finding that his claim was barred by the applicable statute of

limitations. Specifically, Van Duren argues that his cause of action

should accrue from the “denial of his final appeal,” rather than from

the injury itself.

We review a district court’s dismissal of a case under § 1915 for

an abuse of discretion. S ee Moore v. McDonald

, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th2

Cir. 1994). Although Texas law governs the applicable statute of

limitations, we look to federal law to determine when the cause of

action accrues. S ee Gartrell v. Gaylor

, 981 F.2d 254, 257 (5th Cir.

1993). We have held that the statute of limitations begins to run “when

the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the

basis of the action.” I d. Moreover, the cause of action begins to

accrue from the date of the actual injury, rather than from the date the

courts impose punishment. S ee id. For these reasons, and after a

thorough review of the record and Van Duren’s brief, we find that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case.

AFFIRMED.
H. Res. 355

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

July 14, 2005.

Whereas Walter Elias Disney, an imaginative visionary who 

changed the face of American culture, was born in 1901; 

Whereas in the summer of 1923, Walt Disney independently 

produced a cartoon called Alice’s Wonderland, and he decided that he could use it as his ‘‘pilot’’ film to sell a series of Alice comedies to a distributor; 

Whereas Walt Disney’s primary cartoon character, Mickey 

Mouse, has delighted millions of children and adults 

around the world since his debut in 1928; 

Whereas Walt Disney personally won 32 Academy Awards for 

his work, including a special award for the creation of 

Mickey Mouse, a special award for Snow White and the 

Seven Dwarfs, and the prestigious Irving Thalberg Memorial Award given by the Academy of Motion Picture 

Arts and Sciences; 

Whereas Walt Disney introduced the world to his special 

brand of entertainment at the 1964-1965 New York 

World’s Fair, which incorporated four Disney shows, including Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln, a tribute to the 

16th President of the United States; 
2

•HRES 355 EH 

Whereas Walt Disney’s original vision of a place for children 

and adults to have fun together was inspired by his two 

daughters; 

Whereas Walt Disney’s ‘‘dream of a place where parents and 

children could have fun together’’, became a reality with 

the opening of Disneyland in Anaheim, California, and 

subsequently in the opening of additional theme parks, 

cruise lines, and resorts worldwide; 

Whereas when Walt Disney formally dedicated Disneyland on 

July 17, 1955, he stated that he hoped the park would 

be ‘‘. . . a source of joy and inspiration to all the world’’; 

Whereas Walt Disney hosted dignitaries at Disneyland, including Presidents Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, 

John F. Kennedy, and Richard Nixon, and his legacy of 

hospitality has extended to Presidents Jimmy Carter, 

Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush; 

Whereas 2005 is the 50th anniversary of Disneyland; 

Whereas Walt Disney’s dream has launched an industry and 

sparked an empire of fun that now spans the globe, attracting millions of visitors on three continents every 

year; and 

Whereas the Walt Disney Foundation strives to promote discourse, writing, and scholarship about the life, work, and 

philosophy of Walt Disney: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) celebrates Walt Disney’s contributions to our 

Nation; and 
3

•HRES 355 EH 

(2) congratulates Disneyland, ‘‘the Happiest Place 

on Earth’’, on the occasion of its 50th Anniversary. 

Attest:

Clerk.
###### Editorial Note on Part 32

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 32 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 32.13 Same: Prohibition of introduction.

No person may introduce byproduct material into a product or material knowing or having reason to believe that it will be transferred to persons exempt under § 30.14 of this chapter or equivalent regulations of an Agreement State, except in accordance with a license issued under § 32.11.

[72 FR 58487, Oct. 16, 2007]
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sionix Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
McCray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Robert McCray
------------------------------------------
    Robert McCray, Chief Financial Officer

August 16, 2004
157 So.2d 234

#### Alice C. McGINITY v. MARQUETTE CASUALTY COMPANY.

No. 46995.

Nov. 12, 1963.

In re: Mrs. Alice C. McGinity, widow of Richard J. McGinity, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 156 So.2d 713.

Writ denied. Under the facts- found by the Court of Appeal no error in the result.
exv10wl







Exhibit 10(l)




AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY

EXECUTIVE DISABILITY INCOME PLAN




          This Amendment to The Sherwin-Williams Company Executive Disability Income Plan (the “Plan”)
is made effective as of the date specified herein.




WITNESSETH:




          WHEREAS, The Sherwin-Williams Company (the “Company”) established the Plan effective April 1,
1991;




          WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6 of the Plan, the Company retains the right to amend the Plan at
any time in whole or in part; and




          WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Plan to freeze all further participation with respect
to new participants to the Plan beginning January 1, 2008;




          NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the respects hereinafter set forth effective
December 31, 2007:




          Section 4,
Eligibility To Participate, is hereby amended to include a sentence to the end
thereto as follows:






Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective January 1, 2008, participation in the Plan shall be
frozen to all Employees who are not Participants in the Plan as of December 31, 2007.



          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, pursuant to the action of its Board of Directors, the Company has
caused this amendment to be executed effective December 31, 2007 by its duly authorized officer.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY

 	 
	 
	 	By:  	/s/
 	 
	 	 	Louis E. Stellato, Senior Vice President, 	 
	 	 	General Counsel and Secretary
PUBLIC LAW 109–398—DEC. 18, 2006 120 STAT. 2723

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4246:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 151 (2005): Dec. 19, considered and passed House.

Vol. 152 (2006): Dec. 6, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–398

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8135 Forest

Lane in Dallas, Texas, as the ‘‘Dr. Robert E. Price Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DR. ROBERT E. PRICE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal

Service located at 8135 Forest Lane in Dallas, Texas, shall be

known and designated as the ‘‘Dr. Robert E. Price Post Office

Building’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference

to the ‘‘Dr. Robert E. Price Post Office Building’’.

Approved December 18, 2006.

Dec. 18, 2006

[H.R. 4246]
**FOUNTAIN      POWERBOAT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND      SUBSIDIARY**

**EXHIBIT      32 **

**CERTIFICATIONS      **

**Pursuant      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 **

|                                   |                                         |
|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| Date: May                15, 2007 | /s/                Reginald M. Fountain, Jr. |
|                                   | Reginald                M. Fountain, Jr.     |
|                                   | Chief                Executive Officer       |
|                                   |                                         |
| Date: May                15, 2007 | /s/                Irving L. Smith           |
|                                   | Irving                L. Smith               |
|                                   | Chief                Financial Officer       |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LARRY JAMES ADAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-753-MEF

)

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE )

COMPANY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

O R D E R

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court hereby provides notice

to the plaintiff that the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to cause service to be made upon

defendant Lisa Davis within 120 days after the filing of the Complaint in this action on

August 23, 2006. It is the present intention of this Court to dismiss the claims against Lisa

Davis without prejudice on April 13, 2007, unless plaintiff shows good cause for his failure

to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 before that date.

DONE this the 30 day of March, 2007. th

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 8 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### § 590.406 Compliance with orders.

Any person required or authorized to take any action by a final opinion and order of the Assistant Secretary shall file with FE, within thirty (30) days after the requirement or authorization becomes effective, a notice, under oath, that such requirement has been complied with or such authorization accepted or otherwise acted upon, unless otherwise specified in the order.
###### Editorial Note on Part 35

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 35.5 Maintenance of records.

Each record required by this part must be legible throughout the specified retention period. The record may be the original, a reproduced copy, or a microform if the copy or microform is authenticated by authorized personnel and the microform is capable of producing a clear copy throughout the required retention period. The record may also be stored in electronic media with the capability for producing legible, accurate, and complete records during the required retention period. Records such as letters, drawings, and specifications must include all pertinent information such as stamps, initials, and signatures. The licensee shall maintain adequate safeguards against tampering with and loss of records.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2013 - 0365 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM223AD A330 -29 - 3101, R03 --- 8/31/09 A330 -29 - 3101, R02 --- 11/24/08 A330 -29 - 3101, R01 --- 6/30/06 A330 -29 - 3101 --- 4/18/06 A340 -29 -4078, R02 --- 8/31/09 A340 -29 -4091, R01 --- 12/9/11 A340 -29 -4091 --- 4/19/11 A330 -29 - 3119, R02 --- 3/9/12 A330 -29 - 3119, R01 --- 12/9/11 A330 -29 - 3119 --- 4/19/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008