alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            1255
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        6
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1263
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1263
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               54
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1209
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1263
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    18
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       21
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    63
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (66)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (66)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (66)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.14)
        

</TABLE>
227 So.2d 591

#### SISTERS OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD v. QUINN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al.

No. 50102.

Nov. 10, 1969.

In re: Sisters of the Good Shepherd applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to *845the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 225 So.2d 225.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
exv10w35






Exhibit 10.35



AMENDMENT TO THE

AMENDED AND RESTATED CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN



     WHEREAS, Corrections Corporation of America (the “Company”) established the Amended and
Restated Corrections Corporation of America Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation Plan (the
“Plan”), originally effective as of June 1, 2002; and



     WHEREAS, the Company most recently amended and restated the Plan, effective January 1, 2005,
to make changes required or permitted by Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended; and



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to remove the age 70 deferral limit for
deferral elections and subsequent deferral elections occurring on or after February 8, 2010.



     NOW, THEREFORE, effective for deferral elections and subsequent deferral elections occurring
on or after February 8, 2010, the Company hereby amends Section 3.2(a)(ii) of the Plan to provide
as follows:



     (ii) Payment of a Participant’s Deferred Compensation Benefits must commence on
or before the later of (A) sixty (60) days after such Participant’s Separation from
Service, or (B) the fifteenth (15th) day of the month next following the Payment
Date elected by the Participant in his or her deferral election form (or pursuant to
a subsequent deferral election permitted under Section 3.3(c)(iii)).



[Remainder of page intentionally left blank. Signature page follows.]



 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Corrections Corporation of America has caused this Amendment to the
Amended and Restated Corrections Corporation of America Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation
Plan to be executed this 8th day of February, 2010, effective February 8, 2010, by its duly
authorized officers.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ David M. Garfinkle
 

	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Vice President, Finance	 	 






ATTEST:




                                                            





2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

CALVIN FLUKER, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv785-MHT

) 

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., )

and U.S. FOODSERVICE, )

INC.- Montgomery Division, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to withdraw (Doc. No.

31) is granted.

DONE, this the 4th day of June, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 32 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 271 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 271

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 808) to amend title 10, 
    United States Code, to repeal the offset from surviving spouse 
annuities under the military Survivor Benefit Plan for amounts paid by 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as dependency and indemnity 
                             compensation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2005

 Mr. Edwards submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 808) to amend title 10, 
    United States Code, to repeal the offset from surviving spouse 
annuities under the military Survivor Benefit Plan for amounts paid by 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as dependency and indemnity 
                             compensation.

    Resolved, That immediately after the adoption of this resolution 
the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the 
House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 808) to amend title 10, 
United States Code, to repeal the offset from surviving spouse 
annuities under the military Survivor Benefit Plan for amounts paid by 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as dependency and indemnity 
compensation. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
All points of order against the bill and against its consideration are 
waived (except those arising under clause 7 of rule XVI). General 
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Armed Services. After general debate the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
bill shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of 
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole to the bill. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
or without instructions.
                                 <all>
```
(April 27, 1970)

#### In the Matter of James Francione et al., Petitioners, v. New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Motion by petitioners for a stay pending determination of proceeding. *Motion*dismissed as academic, without costs. The proceeding is decided herewith. Christ, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Latham and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
PGI 236.602-1 Selection criteria.

(a) The evaluation criteria should be project specific. Use the information in the DD Form 1391, FY__

Military Construction Project Data, when available, and other pertinent project data in preparing the

evaluation criteria.

(4) Use performance evaluation data from the Contractor Performance Assessment Report System

(CPARS).

(6) The primary factor in architect-engineer contractor selection is the determination of the most

highly qualified firm. Also consider secondary factors such as geographic proximity and equitable

distribution of work, but do not attribute greater significance to the secondary factors than to

qualifications and past performance. Do not reject the overall most highly qualified firm solely in the

interest of equitable distribution of contracts.

(A) Consider the volume of work awarded by DoD during the previous 12 months. In considering

equitable distribution of work among architect-engineer firms, include small business concerns;

historically black colleges and universities and minority institutions; firms that have not had prior

DoD contracts; and small disadvantaged business concerns and joint ventures with small

disadvantaged business participants if the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

Industry Subsector of the acquisition is one in which use of a price evaluation adjustment is

currently authorized (see FAR 19.201(b)).

(1) Use data extracted from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS).

(2) Do not consider awards to overseas offices for projects outside the United States, its territories

and possessions. Do not consider awards to a subsidiary if the subsidiary is not normally subject to

management decisions, bookkeeping, and policies of a holding or parent company or an incorporated

subsidiary that operates under a firm name different from the parent company. This allows greater

competition.

(B) Consider as appropriate superior performance evaluations on recently completed DoD contracts.

(C) Consider the extent to which potential contractors identify and commit to small business, to

small disadvantaged business (SDB) if the NAICS Industry Subsector of the subcontracted effort is

one in which use of an evaluation factor or subfactor for participation of SDB concerns is currently

authorized (see FAR 19.201(b)), and to historically black college or university and minority

institution performance as subcontractors.

Parent topic: PGI 236.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.
Subpart 1942.2 - Assignment of Contract

Administration

Parent topic: PART 1942 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

1942.202-70 Authorized Representative of the Contracting

Officer (AR/CO).

The Contracting Officer may designate an appropriately qualified Government employee to act as

the Authorized Representative of the Contracting Officer (AR/CO). Such designation shall apply to a

single contract, must be in writing, and shall define the scope and limitations of the AR/CO's

authority. The instrument designating an AR/CO shall not contain authority to sign or agree to any

contract or major modification to a contract. Contractual commitments shall be made only by a duly

certified contracting officer. The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 1952.242-70,

Authorized Representative of the Contracting Officer, in solicitations and contracts when an

individual is to be selected and designated by the Contracting Officer to perform administration of a

given contract(s).
exv10wc






EXHIBIT 10(c)




SUMMARY OF BASE SALARY AND ANNUAL INCENTIVE

COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS




     2010 Base Salary. On February 16, 2010, the Compensation and Management Development Committee
(the “Compensation Committee”) of the Board of Directors of The Sherwin-Williams Company
(“Sherwin-Williams”) set the 2010 base salaries of the executive officers who were named in the
Summary Compensation Table of Sherwin-Williams’ 2009 Proxy Statement and who are expected to be
named in the Summary Compensation Table of Sherwin-Williams’ 2010 Proxy Statement (the “Named
Executive Officers”). The base salaries of the Named Executive Officers for 2010 are as follows:
C.M. Connor, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ($1,221,987); J.G. Morikis, President and Chief
Operating Officer ($760,205); S.P. Hennessy, Senior Vice President
— Finance and Chief Financial
Officer ($573,370); S.J. Oberfeld, President, Paint Stores Group ($523,259); and T. W. Seitz,
Senior Vice President — Strategic Excellence Initiatives ($483,385).



     Annual Incentive Compensation to Be Earned in 2010. The Compensation Committee also approved
the following minimum, target and maximum cash bonus award levels, as a percent of salary, for the
Named Executive Officers for 2010 under The Sherwin-Williams Company 2007 Executive Performance
Bonus Plan based upon each Named Executive Officer achieving 0%, 100% and 125%, respectively, of
his performance goals.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Incentive Award as a Percentage of Base Salary
	Named Executive Officer	 	Minimum	 	Target	 	Maximum
	C.M. Connor
	 	 	0	 	 	 	105	 	 	 	210	 
	J.G. Morikis
	 	 	0	 	 	 	75	 	 	 	150	 
	S.P. Hennessy
	 	 	0	 	 	 	75	 	 	 	150	 
	S.J. Oberfeld
	 	 	0	 	 	 	60	 	 	 	120	 
	T.W. Seitz
	 	 	0	 	 	 	60	 	 	 	120
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 4 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 4 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 4 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 4 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 4 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 4 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 4 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 4 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:06-mc-03334-MHT Document 4 Filed 10/04/2006 Page 9 of 9
#### FRIEDMAN v. FRANKLIN FIRE INS. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

Action by Sol Friedman against the Franklin Fire Insurance Company.

No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION

ALMA T. McBROOM, *

PLAINTIFF *

VS. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06 CV767-F

JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER *

GENERAL UNITED STATES POSTAL *

SERVICE; NATIONAL POSTAL *

MAIL HANDLERS UNION; THE *

MONTGOMERY ALABAMA AREA *

LOCAL AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS *

UNION, AFL-CIO; and VANESSA *

GORDON, *

DEFENDANTS *

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

COMES NOW Defendant, VANESSA GORDON by and through 

Counsel and request Plaintiff admit or deny the following 

within 30 days after service of this request.

1. That the Local Union is not required to accompany, 

represent or file a grievance on your behalf 

pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement in 

force at the relevant time complained of. Exhibit 1

2. That Vanessa Gordon did in fact accompany, 

represent you resulting in the document described 

as “Mutual Agreement” Defendant’s Exhibit 2

3. That you failed to follow up or contact VANESSA 

GORDON after the “Mutual Agreement” was signed.

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 56 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 1 of 3
4. That you personally filed a grievance concerning 

your claim for compensation from the Postal 

Service.

5. That after December 31, 2004 you failed or refused 

to answer certified letters sent to you by your 

immediate supervisor concerning your alleged 

grievance. 

6. That you in fact have not been determined to be 

totally disabled.

7. That you, in fact, could work.

3/29/07 /s/ William P. Roberts, II

DATE SIGNATURE OF COUNSEL

COUNSEL FOR:

VANESSA GORDON

HOWELL, SARTO & HOWELL

P.O. Box 681864

147 E. Main St.

Prattville, AL 36068-1864

(334)365-2286

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 56 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the 

foregoing upon the following by U. S. Mail, first class, 

postage pre-paid and through the Court’s electronic filing 

system: 

Debrorah Nicknson 

2820 Fairlane Drive, A-10

Montgomery, AL 36116

Brenda C. Zwack 

O’DONNELL, SCHWARTZ, & ANDERSON, P.C.

1300 L. Street NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20005-4126

Patrick Nakamura 

NAKAMURA, QUINN & WALLS LLP 

2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 130

Birmingham, AL 35209

Dated: March 29, 2007 /s/ William P. Roberts, II

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 56 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 3 of 3
§ 429.48 Illuminated exit signs. ( a ) *Sampling plan for selection of units for testing.* ( 1 ) The requirements of § 429.11 are applicable to illuminated exit signs; and
( 2 ) For each basic model of illuminated exit sign selected for testing, a sample of sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that— ( i ) Any represented value of input power demand or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of: ( A ) The mean of the sample, where: Or,
( B ) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 1.10, where: and
( ii ) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of: ( A ) The mean of the sample, where: Or,
( B ) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 0.90, where:
( b ) *Certification reports.* ( 1 ) The requirements of § 429.12 are applicable to illuminated exit signs; and
( 2 ) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following public product-specific information: The input power demand in watts (W) and the number of faces.
[76 FR 12451, Mar. 7, 2011; 76 FR 24778, May 2, 2011]
#### § 490.802 Eligibility for alternative compliance waiver.

Any State subject to subpart C of this part and any covered person subject to subpart D of this part may apply to DOE for a waiver from the applicable alternative fueled vehicle acquisition requirements.
Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105



## MEMO RANDUM

DATE: August 2 7 , 2015

TO: EPA Region 9 Rulemaking File for the BAAQMD NSR SIP Submittal

FROM: Shaheerah Kelly , EPA Region 9 , Air Division, Permits Office

SUBJECT: August 27, 2015 Conference Phone Call regarding the EPA Proposed Limited

Approval and Limited Disapproval of Regulation 2, Ru les 1 & 2

ATTENDEES

EPA Region 9 :

• Elizabeth Adams, Air Division

• Amy Zimpfer, Air Division

• Kerry Drake, Air Division

• Gerardo Rios, Air Division

• Laura Yannayon, Air Division

• Shaheerah Kelly, Air Division

• Ann Lyons

, Office of Regional Counsel

BAAQMD:

• Jeff McKay , BAAQMD

• Jim Karas

, BAAQMD

• Brian Bunger, BAAQMD Counsel’s Office

• Sandy Crockett, BAAQMD Counsel’s Office

SUMMARY

BAAQMD’s and EPA’s discussion was to clarify the District’s questions regarding the following

items:

1. Regarding the c ontrol strategy deficiency, BAAQMD provided clarification that Rule 2

- 1

-

304 satisfies the federal requirement identified for this deficiency . Applicants must comply

with SIP. No ATC is issued unless the applicant compl ies wi th all rules . (see deficiency item

#3 in section 11 of the August 2015 T SD )Page 2 of 2 2. We discussed w hether source is major if one of the 28 CAA 169(1) , and whether there are

additional categories regulated under 111/112 since 8/8/1979 . (see deficiency item #7 in

section 11 of the August 2015 T SD )

3. Regarding 40 CFR 51.307 visibility require ments, EPA suggested that BAAQMD may

consider using FLAG guidelines for determining whether a project “may have an impact” on

a nearby Class I area. (See deficiency item #9 in section 11 of the August 2015 T SD )

4. Regarding offset refunds deficiency, EPA sta ted that time limits are needed. (see deficiency

item # 10 in section 11 of the August 2015 T SD )

ATTACHMENTS

• N one
Editorial Note on Part 26
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear at 87 FR 71455, Nov. 22, 2022.

§ 26.97 Collecting oral fluid specimens for alcohol and drug testing. ( a ) To perform the initial specimen collection, the collector shall— ( 1 ) Check the expiration date on the device and show it to the donor (the device may not be used after its expiration date);
( 2 ) Open an individually wrapped or sealed package containing the device in the presence of the donor;
( 3 ) Offer the donor the choice of using the device or having the collector use it. If the donor chooses to use it, instruct the donor to insert the device into his or her mouth and use it in the manner described by the device's manufacturer;
( 4 ) If the donor chooses not to use the device, or in all cases when a new specimen collection is necessary because the device failed to activate, insert the device into the donor's mouth, and gather oral fluids in the manner described by the device's manufacturer (wear single-use examination or similar gloves while doing so and change them following each specimen collection); and
( 5 ) When the device is removed from the donor's mouth, follow the manufacturer's instructions regarding necessary next steps to ensure that the device has activated.
( b ) If the steps in paragraph (a) of this section could not be completed successfully (e.g., the device breaks, the device is dropped on the floor, the device fails to activate), the collector shall— ( 1 ) Discard the device and conduct a new specimen collection using a new device. The new device must be one that has been under the collector's control before the specimen collection;
( 2 ) Record the reason for the new specimen collection;
( 3 ) Offer the donor the choice of using the device or having the collector use it unless the donor, in the opinion of the collector, was responsible for the new specimen collection needing to be conducted. If the collector concludes that the donor was responsible, then the collector shall use the device to conduct the specimen collection; and
( 4 ) Repeat the procedures in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) If the second collection attempt in paragraph (b) of this section could not be completed, the collector shall— ( 1 ) End the collection of oral fluids and document the reason(s) that the collection could not be completed; and
( 2 ) Immediately conduct another specimen collection (*i.e.,* initial test using an EBT for alcohol, or urine specimen collection for drug testing).
( d ) For alcohol testing of oral fluids, the collector shall read the result displayed on the device no sooner than the device's manufacturer instructs. In all cases, the collector shall read the result within 15 minutes of the test. The collector shall then show the device and its reading to the donor, record the result, and record that an ASD was used.
( e ) Devices, swabs, gloves, and other materials used in collecting oral fluids may not be re-used.
[73 FR 17176, Mar. 31, 2008, as amended at 87 FR 71457, Nov. 22, 2022]