alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Section 1: General Information 

Please fill out and submit this form electronically to WaterSense by Monday, April 1, 2013. If you have any questions, 

please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions page or email the WaterSense Helpline.

To save a draft of this application, select “Save my progress and resume later”. You will be prompted to provide an email 

address and password that you will use to re-enter the form. WaterSense does not have access to these passwords, 

so please keep your password in a safe place. 

Please fill in the following information as it relates to your organization: 

 

 

Phone * Format (xxx xxx xxxx) 

Fax 

Email * 

Section 2: Eligibility 

Yes, our organization became a WaterSense partner prior to January 1, 

2013. 

Section 3: Organization Description 

 

Section 4: Written Statement 

If you haven’t done so already, please download, complete, and save your written statement. 

 Acceptable file formats: Word or PDF. 

Section 5: Supporting Materials 

Please note: WaterSense is no longer accepting hard copy supporting materials. Partners are also asked to limit their 

electronic supporting materials to 25 pages. Additional supporting materials will not be reviewed. 

 

Upload more supporting materials 

Organization Name * Please select... 

Contact Name (for awards-related communications) *

Title

Please verify your eligibility: * 

Briefly describe your organization in no more than 300 words. If selected to receive an award, this 

description may be used in recognition materials. *





Please upload your final written statement, in which you have addressed the evaluation criteria. *

Browse...

Please upload any supporting materials that help demonstrate the accomplishments described in your 

written statement. Including supporting materials is not required, but is strongly encouraged. To upload 

additional supporting materials, please use the "Upload more supporting materials" link below the first 

record.

Browse...

Page 1 of 2

Professional Certifying Organization - Awards Application
Please note: Individual files may not exceed 5 MB. Total file size may not exceed 20 MB. 

We understand that some high-resolution photos may be quite large and push your application over the 20 MB file size 

limit. Therefore, you may send up to 10 additional photos of your 2012 WaterSense-related activities to 

watersenseawards@erg.com. These photos may be used in recognition materials if your organization is selected for an 

award. Materials other than photos sent to this email address will not be reviewed with your application. 

Your application form, including the written statement and supporting materials, must be submitted by Monday, April 1, 

2013 to be considered for an award. 

On the following page, you will be asked to review your responses. You must select "confirm" at the bottom of the 

following page to submit your award application to WaterSense. 

Please note, you may need to try different printer settings or print as a PDF to print the full report for your records. We 

apologize for any inconvenience. 

Need assistance with this form? 

Page 2 of 2
#### § 434.605 Standard Calculation Procedure.

605.1 The Standard Calculation Procedure consists of methods and assumptions for calculating the Energy Use Budgets for Prototype and Reference Buildings and the Energy Use for the Proposed Design. In order to maintain consistency between the Energy Use Budgets and the Design Energy Use, the input assumptions stated in subsection 510.2 are to be used.

605.2 The terms Energy Cost Budget and Design Energy Cost or Design Energy Consumption used in subpart E of this part correlate to Energy Use Budget and Design Energy Use, respectively, in subpart F of this part.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0247 

_____________________________

KENNETH LAMAR REESE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Francis J. Allman, Jr., Judge.

June 10, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and RAY and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Tyler Kemper Payne,

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### City of Elwood *v.*Wilson et al.

[No. 16,907.

Filed March 15, 1943.]

*Bushy & Davisson,*of Anderson, for appellant.

*J. Edwin Smith,*of Gary, for appellees.

*150Blessing, C. J. —

The Board of Public Works and Safety of the City of Elwood, Indiana, dismissed appellees from their positions as police officers of said city. Appellees then appealed to the Madison Circuit Court. Said Madison Circuit Court, after hearing the evidence, entered a judgment ordering the Board of Public Works and Safety to reinstate each of the appellees to his position as a police officer. After a motion for new trial was filed and overruled, the appellant city prosecuted this appeal.

Appellant relies upon the following assigned errors for reversal:

(1) The court erred in denying appellant’s request or petition for a trial by jury.

(2) The court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a rehearing or new trial.

(3) The judgment appealed from is clearly against the weight of the evidence and is not fairly supported by the evidence.

(4) The judgment appealed from is contrary to law.

The first assigned error, which was expressly. waived by appellant in his brief, is not a proper separate assignment of error. It should be assigned under a motion for new trial. Neither are the third and fourth assignments of error proper assignments. *Partlow*v. *Mitchell*(1919), 69 Ind. App. 505, 122 N. E. 340. This leaves only the error predicated on the overruling of the motion for new trial to be • considered by the court. However, the motion for new trial is not set out in appellant’s brief.

If the motion for new trial had been set out in the brief, the specifications thereunder would have required a consideration of the evidence, and the bill of exceptions containing the evidence is not in the record. The transcript does not show that *151the bill of exceptions was filed in the clerk’s office either by an order book entry or by the certificate of the clerk. The transcript must show that the bill of exceptions was filed in the clerk’s office or it is not part of the record. *Harker*v. *Eisenhut*(1937), 212 Ind. 67, 6 N. E. (2d) 936; *Satterblom*v. *Wasson*(1942), 111 Ind. App. 377, 41 N. E. (2d) 674.

The former ruling of the court on appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is now reconsidered, and, it appearing that the record is insufficient to present any question for review, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 47 N. E. (2d) 165.
#### Harvey B. RAZEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 85-3639.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 1985.

Decided April 1, 1986.

As Amended July 22, 1986.

Robert P. Stephens, Spokane, Wash., for plaintiff-appellant.

Richard Wetmore, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellee.

Before GOODWIN, ALARCON, and POOLE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The panel has voted to amend its opinion filed herein on April 1,1986, 785 F.2d 1426, by adding the following paragraph on page 1431 before “AFFIRMED”:

> We do not reach, and express no opinion upon, the issue of the preclusive effect of this case on any other case in which Razey may be a member of a plaintiff class, nor do we express any opinion upon the effect of such other cases upon this case.

With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. (Fed.R.App.P. 35.)

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.
Amendment to Mr. Budge's offer letter dated August 1, 2006



 Exhibit 10.2 
 August 1, 2006 
 James Budge 
 c/o Macrovision Corporation 
 2830 De La Cruz Boulevard 
 Santa Clara, CA 95050 
 RE: Amendment to Annual Stock Option Refresh Grants 
 Dear James: 
 Pursuant to your offer letter
dated July 22, 2005, Macrovision Corporation (the “Company”) agreed to make annual stock option grants to you in each of 2006 and 2007 for 75,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. These annual stock option grants are divided
equally between two semiannual grant dates each year, which have been established by the Compensation Committee as March 1 and September 1 of each such year. 
 On July 28, 2006, the Compensation Committee approved an amendment to your offer letter with the Company such that on the September 1, 2006 grant date, the Company will grant you 37,500 shares of restricted
stock (the “Restricted Stock Award”), instead of the stock option grant that would have otherwise been granted to you on such date pursuant to your offer letter. The Restricted Stock Award will be granted at a price per share of the par
value of the stock, which is $0.001 per share, and will have a 4 year vesting schedule. These shares will vest in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Macrovision Corporation 2000 Equity Incentive Plan as follows: twenty-five percent
(25%) of the Restricted Stock Award shall vest on each anniversary of the September 1 grant date, subject to you continuing to be an employee of the Company or its subsidiaries through the applicable vesting date. 
 The Compensation Committee further approved the amendment to your offer letter to grant you restricted stock for the future semiannual grants in 2007. The number of
shares and vesting terms for each semiannual grant will be the same as the Restricted Stock Award set forth above, with vesting commencing as of the date of the grant. 
 All other terms of your offer letter employment arrangement remain unchanged. To indicate your agreement with the terms of this amendment to your offer letter, please indicate by signing below and returning a copy of
this letter to the Company no later than August 3, 2006. 
 Sincerely, 
  

			
	 /s/ Steven G. Blank
	 	
	Steven G. Blank	 	
	Compensation Committee	 	
	Macrovision Corporation	 	
		
	Agreed & Accepted:	 	
		
	 /s/ James Budge
	 	 8/3/06

	James Budge	 	date
#### § 1120.605 Location of national policy requirements in the standard award format.

As shown in the table in § 1120.4(b), the standard award format includes national policy requirements as Subdivision C of the general terms and conditions.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________
No. 00-11243

_____________________

THOMAS W. RICE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MELQUIADES R. MARTINEZ, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas USDC No. 95-CV-750

_________________________________________________________________ July 2, 2001 Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

After reviewing the briefs and considering the arguments made

by the parties, we are convinced that the district court committed

no reversible error and therefore affirm the judgment. S ee 5TH

CIR. R. 47.6.

A F F I R M E D .
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The    undersigned,   an   officer    of    Meritech   Mortgage   Services, Inc.
(The "Participant")        hereby         certifies        as           follows:


     (1)     A review of the activities of the Participant  during the preceding
             year with  respect to  performance  under this  Agreement  has been
             made under such Officer's supervision; and



     (2)     To the best of such Officer's knowledge based on such review, there
             is   no default  by  the  Participant  in fulfillment of any of its
             obligations under this Agreement,  or if there is any such  default
             and the such Officer, specifying each such default  and the  nature
             and status thereof.



In  witness  whereof the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Compliance
this 29th day of February, 1996.



Meritech Mortgage Services, Inc.


/s/X
38362.

#### STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. DRAPER *et al.*

Decided July 1, 1960

Rehearing denied July 15, 1960.

*200
      *Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Carter Goode, Paul Miller, Assistant Attorneys-General, William M. Mallet, Deputy Assistant Attorney-General, George P. Dillard,*for plaintiff in error.

*Davis & Stringer,*contra.

Nichols, Judge.

1. Under the decisions in *Woodside v. City of Atlanta,*214 Ga. 75 (103 S. E. 2d 108), and *State Highway Dept. v. Wilson,*98 Ga. App. 619 (106 S. E. 2d 544), as construed by the Supreme Court in *State Highway Dept. v. Hendrix,*215 Ga. 821 (113 S. E. 2d 761), an appeal by a condemnor from the assessors’ award to a jury in the superior court is valid only when the amount of the assessors’ award is properly paid or tendered into the registry of the court within the statutory period in which appeals are allowed. The question here to be decided is whether or not an appeal is valid when the appeal is filed before the amount of the assessors’ award is paid into the registry of the court (both having been accomplished within the statutory period allowed in such cases for appeal).

While the appeal as originally filed in this case, under the above decisions was invalid and subject to motion to dismiss, such defect could have been waived by the condemnees by fail*201ing to properly object before a verdict by a jury. The jury’s verdict, as with other amendable defects in pleadings, would forever cure such defect. The defect in the appeal as originally filed, being one that would be cured by verdict, was amendable, and the payment of the assessors’ award into the registry of the court within the statutory period allowed -for same was tantamount to an amendment, and when the appeal was thus amended, it was not subject to the condemnees’ motion to dismiss.

Accordingly the trial court’s judgment sustaining the condemnees’ motion to dismiss must be

*Reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.*
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1147 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 170 ) IV-E-4

3 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/20082:42:56

PM Sheet 170of 242^ e ! ! % P. 2

T i UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5
OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N

MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Vapo r Spac e Requiremen t for Fue l Tank s FROM : Joh

n F . Anderson , Senio r Projec t Manage r Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h TO : Publi c Docke t A-87-1 1

I n respons e t o thi s reques t I wag contacte d b yLoi s Freeman , wh o gav e me genera l informatio n abou t thi s area . Fo r example , she indicate d tha t on averag e 1 8 percen t o f the fue l tan k volume i s vapo r space , bu t tha t -i t varie s b

yplu s or minu s 7 percen t a s a functio n o f suchfactor s a s tan k location , ven t line location , an d variou s performanc e criteri a (e.g. , hea t effects , vehicl e cornering , etc) . For furthe r detai l abou t wha t th

e specifi c performanc e criteri a are , sh e referred m e t o a sectio n in th e G Mcomment s (Volum

e ?.B , Attachmen t XV-3 , Corporat e Fue l Suppl yDesign Guidelines , supplie d in respons e t o NHTSAquestio n 1 1 o f th e followu

p lette r w

e ha d sen t t o G

M afte r the onboard hearings) . Upo n consulting th e reference , I foun d i t t o be a listin g o f numerou s procedure s used t o evaluat e variou s aspect s o f fue l syste mperformance . Fro mtha t lis t I identifie d 1 9 specifi c items o f interes t an d requested copie s fro mGM . Furthe r analvsi s wil l awai t receip t o f thos e documents .
§ 1301.26 Exemptions from import or export requirements for personal medical use. Any individual who has in his/her possession a controlled substance listed in schedules II, III, IV, or V, which he/she has lawfully obtained for his/her personal medical use, or for administration to an animal accompanying him/her, may enter or depart the United States with such substance notwithstanding sections 1002-1005 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 952-955), provided the following conditions are met: ( a ) The controlled substance is in the original container in which it was dispensed to the individual; and
( b ) The individual makes a declaration to an appropriate customs officer stating: ( 1 ) That the controlled substance is possessed for his/her personal use, or for an animal accompanying him/her; and
( 2 ) The trade or chemical name and the symbol designating the schedule of the controlled substance if it appears on the container label, or, if such name does not appear on the label, the name and address of the pharmacy or practitioner who dispensed the substance and the prescription number.
( c ) In addition to (and not in lieu of) the foregoing requirements of this section, a United States resident may import into the United States no more than 50 dosage units combined of all such controlled substances in the individual's possession that were obtained abroad for personal medical use. (For purposes of this section, a United States resident is a person whose residence (*i.e.*, place of general abode—meaning one's principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent) is in the United States.) This 50 dosage unit limitation does not apply to controlled substances lawfully obtained in the United States pursuant to a prescription issued by a DEA registrant.
[69 FR 55347, Sept. 14, 2004, as amended at 81 FR 97019, Dec. 30, 2016]
#### THE HUNTERDON COUNTY NATIONAL BANK OF FLEMINGTON, RESPONDENT, v. JOHN P. PACKER ET AL., APPELLANTS.

Argued February 8, 1939

Decided April 21, 1939.

*378For the respondent, *George K. Large*and *Herr & Fisher.*

For the appellants, *Harry Krieger.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Case in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, JJ. 12.

*For reversal*— None.
#### § 2867.437 What method must be used to communicate to a participant the requirements described in the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.435?

To communicate to a participant the requirements described in 2 CFR 180.435 of the OMB guidance, the communication must include a term or condition in the transaction that requires the participant's compliance with subpart C of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by subpart C of this part, and requires the participant to include a similar term or condition in lower-tier covered transactions.
#### § 71.119 Control of special processes.

The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall establish measures to assure that special processes, including welding, heat treating, and nondestructive testing are controlled and accomplished by qualified personnel using qualified procedures in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications, criteria, and other special requirements.
**EXHIBIT12.1**

 

**Hospitality Properties Trust**

**Computation of Ratio of Earnings to FixedCharges**

**(in thousands, except ratio amounts)**

 
|                                                                 | ** ** | **Year Ended December 31,** | ** ** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | **2005**                    | ** ** | **2004** | ** ** | **2003** | ** ** | **2002** | ** ** | **2001** | ** ** |
|                                                                 |       |                        |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net income                                                           |       | $                           | 129,903    |   | $ | 127,091 |   | $ | 238,213 |   | $ | 142,202 |   | $ | 131,956 |   |
| Fixed  charges                                                       |       | 65,263                      |       | 50,393 |   | 44,536 |   | 42,424 |   | 41,312 |   |
| Adjusted  earnings                                                   |       | $                           | 195,166    |   | $ | 177,484 |   | $ | 282,749 |   | $ | 184,626 |   | $ | 173,268 |   |
|                                                                 |       |                        |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed  charges:                                                      |       |                        |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest on indebtedness and amortization  of deferred finance costs |       | $                           | 65,263     |   | $ | 50,393 |   | $ | 44,536 |   | $ | 42,424 |   | $ | 41,312 |   |
|                                                                 |       |                        |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of  earnings to fixed charges                                  |       | 2.99x                       |       | 3.52x |   | 6.35x |   | 4.35x |   | 4.19x |   |

 

----