alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Archives and Records Administration

###### Information Security Oversight Office

# AGENCY:

Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives and Records Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101-6, the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) announces the inaugural meeting of the State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Policy Advisory Committee (SLTPS-PAC). The SLTPS-PAC will advise the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), and other executive branch officials on all matters concerning the policies relating to access to and safeguarding of classified national security information by U.S. State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities, as specified in Executive Order 13549 and its implementing directive.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

National Archives and Records Administration, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Jefferson Room, Washington, DC 20408.

# SUPPEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the Information Security Oversight Office no later than Thursday, January 6, 2011. ISOO will provide additional instructions for gaining access to the location of the meeting.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Robert J. Skwirot, Senior Program Analyst, ISOO, National Archives Building, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20408, telephone number (202) 357-5398, or at                         *robert.skwirot@nara.gov.*                         Contact ISOO at                         *ISOO@nara.gov.*

Dated: December 16, 2010.

Mary Ann Hadyka,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-32150 Filed 12-20-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
#### HORENBURGER v. ERICSSON et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

Action by Hermann Horenburger against Albertine E. Ericsson and others.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs. Order filed.
§ 600.114 Special award conditions. ( a ) If an applicant or recipient has a history of poor performance, is not financially stable, has a management system that does not meet the standards prescribed in this subpart, has not conformed to the terms and conditions of a previous award, or is not otherwise responsible, DOE may impose additional requirements as needed, without regard to the deviation provisions of § 600.4. Such applicant or recipient will be notified in writing as to the nature of the additional requirements, the reason why the additional requirements are being imposed, the nature of the corrective action needed, and the time allowed for completing the corrective actions. Reconsideration of the additional requirements may be requested at any time. Any special conditions shall be promptly removed once the conditions that prompted them have been corrected.
( b ) A recipient may place a special restrictive condition, as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, in a subaward. In any such case, the recipient must notify DOE in writing within 15 days of the subaward. DOE shall decide whether to notify OMB and other interested parties.
#### Andrew Beveridge, Plaintiff, v. Jesse Spier et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Jesse Spier, Appellant, v. Daniel Brinn et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.) Margaret Kiely, Plaintiff, v. Daniel Brinn et al., Defendants. (Action No. 3.) Michael Brinn et al., Appellants, v. Jesse Spier, Respondent. (Action No. 4.) Jesse Spier, Appellant, v. Daniel Brinn, Respondent. (Action No. 5.)

Judgement entered December 8, 1965, in consolidated action, setting aside jury verdict in favor of Jesse Spier as -against defendants Daniel Brinn and Michael Brinn (Action No. 2), unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, and the verdict is reinstated; likewise in Action No. 5 the judgment is unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts and the verdict reinstated; and the judgment in favor of Jesse Spier in action brought against him by plaintiffs Michael Brinn and Daniel Brinn (Action No. 4), affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements in favor of Spier. The trial court was in error in finding Spier guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. On the record before us, this was properly a question of fact for the jury to determine. The testimony that the view of the intersection was limited by the curvature of East 135th Street, that an adjacent building *921further obscured the view, that Brian came on “ at a very, very great rate of speed ”, and that Spier already was in the intersection, all prevent a determination of Spier’s negligence as a matter of law, independent of the jury. The question was one of fact for the jury. *(Verlaque*v. *Weldon,*5 A D 2d 809, affd. 5 N Y 2d 816; *Giardina*v. *Garnerville Holding Corp.,*265 App. Div. 1004; *White*v. *Leary,*7 A D 2d 807; *Spinelli*v. *Licorich,*24 A D 2d 172.) Similarly, the judgment entered on the verdict of the jury in Action No. 4 in favor of Spier as defendant is sustained. Here too, the respective alleged negligence of the parties was one of fact for the jury, and the jury verdict in Spier’s favor cannot be disturbed if it is sustainable under any fair consideration of the evidence. *(Altman*v. *Central N. Y. Bldg. Corp.,*201 Misc. 27, affd. 207 Misc. 31; *Hilts*v. *Winkler,*29 A D 2d 822; *Reid*v. *Haynes,*276 App. Div. 977.) In .this case, on this record, there is ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Concur-—-Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, Tilzer, McGivern and iSteuer, JJ.
# PGI 219.804 Evaluation, offering, and acceptance.

- PGI 219.804-2 Agency offering. 
- PGI 219.804-3 SBA acceptance. 

**Parent topic:**PGI 219.8 -CONTRACTING WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (THE 8(A) PROGRAM)
#### § 52.21 Administrative review of applications; hearings.

An early site permit is subject to all procedural requirements in 10 CFR part 2, including the requirements for docketing in § 2.101(a)(1) through (4) of this chapter, and the requirements for issuance of a notice of hearing in §§ 2.104(a) and (d) of this chapter, provided that the designated sections may not be construed to require that the environmental report, or draft or final environmental impact statement include an assessment of the benefits of construction and operation of the reactor or reactors, or an analysis of alternative energy sources. The presiding officer in an early site permit hearing shall not admit contentions proffered by any party concerning an assessment of the benefits of construction and operation of the reactor or reactors, or an analysis of alternative energy sources if those issues were not addressed by the applicant in the early site permit application. All hearings conducted on applications for early site permits filed under this part are governed by the procedures contained in subparts C, G, L, and N of 10 CFR part 2, as applicable.
exv10w9w1






EXHIBIT 10.9.1




AMENDMENT NO.1 TO

1998 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN




     The Trinity Industries, Inc. 1998 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, as amended from time to
time (the “Plan”), is hereby amended by this Amendment No. 1, effective as of December 9, 1999.



     Any term which is not defined below shall have the meaning set forth
for such term in the Plan.




     1. Section 11 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated as follows:



               Non-transferability of Stock Options. A stock option shall not be transferable otherwise than
by will or the laws of descent and distribution, and a stock option may be exercised, during the
lifetime of the Optionee, only by the Optionee; provided, however, a Non-qualified Stock Option may
be transferred to one or more members of the immediate family of the Optionee, to a trust for the
benefit of one or more members of the immediate family of the Optionee, to a partnership, the sole
partners of which are the Optionee and members of the immediate family of the Optionee, or a
foundation in which the Optionee controls the management of the assets. Upon any transfer, a stock
option will remain subject to all the provisions of this Plan and the option agreement, including
the provisions regarding termination of rights with respect to the stock option upon termination of
the Optionee’s employment, and the transferee shall have all of the rights of and be subject to all
of the obligations and limitations applicable to the Optionee with respect to the stock option,
except that the transferee may further transfer the stock option only to a person or entity that
the Optionee is permitted to transfer the stock option. Any attempted assignment, transfer, pledge,
hypothecation, or other disposition of a stock option contrary to the provisions hereof, or the
levy of any execution, attachment, or similar process upon a stock option shall be null and void
and without effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized
officer of the Company as of the day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	BY: /s/ Michael G. Furtado
#### § 993.21c Salable prunes.

*Salable prunes* means those prunes which are free to be handled pursuant to any salable percentage established by the Secretary pursuant to § 993.54, or, if no reserve percentage is in effect for a crop year, all prunes, excluding the quantity of undersized prunes determined pursuant to § 993.49(c), received by handlers from producers and dehydrators during that year.

[46 FR 61637, Dec. 18, 1981]
#### In the Matter of Lou Wein, Also Known as Louis P. Wein, Appellant, v Louise Thomas et al., Respondents, and Francis X. Gargiulo et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 7, 1980, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Concur—Birns, Fein, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.

Kupferman, J. P.,

dissents in a memorandum as follows: The appellant served and filed an order to show cause and accompanying petition seeking *612to compel the Board of Elections to validate the nominating petitions of the City Independent Party for the general election to be held November 4 for the 17th Congressional District. The court at Special Term dismissed the petition "by reason of defective service.” The "defect” was the fact that service was made by the candidate petitioner *himself*upon the appropriate parties. CPLR 2103 (subd [a]) provides that "Except where otherwise prescribed by law or order of court, papers may be served by any person not a party”. Bearing in mind that the election laws should be liberally construed to enable persons who have complied with the provisions of the Election Law to appear on the ballot, see *Matter of Barber v Lomenzo*(24 AD2d 43, 46, affd 16 NY2d 963), the provisions which have to do with litigation generally should not be strictly construed in order to prevent a duly nominated candidate from pursuing his legal rights. Service by a party, under the circumstances, should be considered a mere irregularity, and especially when the defect does not prejudice the right of any party. (See CPLR 2001; *Matter of Kandel v State Div. of Human Rights,*70 AD2d 817, 818.) In commenting on this case in the 1979 Survey of New York Law (31 Syracuse L Rev 34), the following was observed: "This year, the First Department observed that party service is 'a mere irregularity.’ On principle, the First Department is clearly correct”. Dean Joseph M. McLaughlin in his Practice Commentaries (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 2103, Cumulative Annual Pocket Part 1979-1980, p 46) states as follows: "In the absence of prejudice to the defendant, would it not make more sense to characterize these defects as mere irregularities and get on with the proceeding?”
227 So.2d 372

#### GOVERNOR CLAIBORNE APARTMENTS, INC. v. Joseph J. ATTALDO.

No. 50061.

Nov. 6, 1969.

In re: Governor Claiborne Apartments, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 224 So.2d 537.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### Frank Ridolfi, Appellant, v. Frederic S. Berman, as Commissioner of Department of Rent and Housing Maintenance, Respondent.

Judgment entered December 3, 1968, dismissing petition of landlord-owner, unanimously reversed on the law, without costs or disbursements to either party, the determination of the Rent Commissioner annulled and the matter remanded for further proceedings in respects of the bona fide plans of the. petitioner for future occupancy. It is represented that the building in question is actually and historically a one-family building, the dimensions of which are 18 feet by 36 feet, that the present Building Code requires a room to be 12 feet by 15 feet, and that if the petitioner were to occupy the present apartments in this small building pursuant to his present plans, he would have but two bedrooms, in addition to a living room and a dining, room, a kitchen alcove and a bath. Since this building has been owned by petitioner or his deceased wife since 1956, an ameliorative distinction should in fairness be made in favor of the owner on the further representation he himself will actually occupy the entire apartment premises. Although normally, we are reluctant to interfere with any administrative ruling, we do so here without fear of any undue precedent, because of the wholly unique and singular circumstances prevailing, not likely ever to recur. We think such a disposition better meets the test of rationality which must apply in all the quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies. *(Matter of 125 Bar Corp.*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*24 N Y 2d 174, 178.) Concur Stevens, P. J., Eager, McGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 53 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 53 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 53 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 53 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 53 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 53 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 6 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 53-2 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 53-2 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 53-2 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 53-2 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 53-2 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 53-2 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 53-2 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 7 of 7
2007-2245.

#### Everest Indemn. Ins. Co. v. Sinclair.

In Prohibition. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss granted. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.

Motion for admission pro hac vice of Stephen P. Brown by Jerome G. Wyss granted.
§ 436.107 Review of plan. ( a ) Each plan or revision of a plan shall be submitted to DOE and DOE will evaluate the sufficiency of the plan in accordance with the requirements of this subpart. Written notification of the adequacy of the plan including a critique, will be made by DOE and sent to the agency submitting the plan or revision within 60 days of submission. Agencies shall be afforded an opportunity to modify and return the plan within an appropriate period of time for review by DOE.
( b ) A general operations plan under the guidelines will be evaluated with respect to: ( 1 ) Adequacy of information or plan content required to be included by § 436.102;
( 2 ) Adequacy of goal setting methodology or baseline justification as stated in § 436.103;
( 3 ) Adequacy of a well-justified investment program which considers all measures included in appendix C of this subpart; and
( 4 ) Other factors as appropriate.
( c ) After reviewing agency plans or revisions of plans, the Under Secretary of DOE, may submit to the “656” Committee for its recommendation, major problem areas or common deficiencies.
( d ) Status of the plan review, the Under Secretary's decisions, and “656” Committee recommendations, will be published as appropriate in the DOE annual report to the President, titled “Energy Management in the Federal Government.”
#### THOMSON, Appellant, v. TOMKINS, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 11, 1914.)

In the matter of Thomas T. Thomson against Calvin Tomkins, individually and as commissioner. L. T. Fetzer, of New York City, for appellant. T. Farley, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
PGI 233.171 Reporting requirement for protests of solicitations or awards.       The Protest Tracker on the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) (accessible at https://wawf.eb.mil/) is the bid protest data repository required by section 822(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232). When protests involving the same contract or proposed award, valued at any amount, have been filed at both the Government Accountability Office and the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC), the contracting officer shall report the protest information required in the Protest Tracker no later than 10 days after the outcome of the protest at the COFC. Instructions on reporting protest information in the Protest Tracker are available on the PIEE webpage.    **Parent topic:** PGI 233.1 -PROTESTS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Case No.: 2:06-cr-205-WHA

 )

SEBASTIAN K. SMITH, JR. )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW the undersigned counsel, Donnie W. Bethel, and enters his appearance

on behalf of Defendant, Sebastian K. Smith, Jr, in the above-styled case.

Dated this 25 day of August, 2006. th

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Donnie W. Bethel

DONNIE W. BETHEL

Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail:don_bethel@fd.org

IN Bar Code: 14773-49

Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 15 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Case No.: 2:06-cr-205-WHA

 )

SEBASTIAN K. SMITH, JR. )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 26, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

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

Christopher Snyder, Esq., Assistant U. S. Attorney, One Court Square, Suite 201, Montgomery,

Alabama 36104. 

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Donnie W. Bethel

DONNIE W. BETHEL

Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail:don_bethel@fd.org

IN Bar Code: 14773-49

Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 15 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 2 of 2
PGI 225.371-2 Definitions.       “Designated operational areas” include, but are not limited to, such descriptors as theater of war, theater of operations, joint operations area, amphibious objective area, joint special operations area, and area of operations. See DoD Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations, Chapter IV, Paragraph 2, “Understanding the Operational Environment,” at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_0.pdf.    **Parent topic:** PGI 225.371 Contractor personnel supporting U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside the United States.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of William R. Lunney, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling claimant ineligible for benefits effective October 30, 1967 on the ground that he was not available for employment (Labor Law, § 591, subd. 2). Whether a person is available for employment during a specific period is a question of fact and thus if the board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence it must be upheld (e.g. *Matter of Ciganek*[Catherwood], 30 A D 2d 607; *Matter of Vitolo*[Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 758). In the instant case there is ample evidence to support the finding of the board that “ during the period involved, claimant did not make an active or realistic search for work”. It is completely irrelevant and immaterial to the determination of the instant appeal that in previous years when the racing season had ended at Monticello claimant and other employees had received benefits or that claimant was ruled eligible during a period subsequent to the period in issue. The principles of estoppel and *res judicata*have no application in cases such as the instant case since the question of availability for employment is a continuing factor and of necessity requires a periodic examination of claimant’s effort in seeking to obtain work. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Cooke and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.