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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7780

CHRISTOPHER H. WRIGHT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

R. D. FOWLER, Officer; TOBY MATTHEWS, Sheriff;

DOCTOR STOKES, Henrico County Jail Medical;

HENRICO COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-96-730)

Submitted: August 25, 1998 Decided: September 17, 1998

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher H. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Paul Rapisarda,

Jr., County Attorney, James Thomas Moore, III, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S

OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia; Anton Joseph Stelly, THOMPSON,

SMITHERS, NEWMAN & WADE, Richmond, Virginia; Carlyle Randolph

Wimbish, III, Marvin Pierce Rucker, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS &

MILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993).

2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the magistrate judge’s order* denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm. Wright v. Fowler, No. CA-96-730

(E.D. Va. Nov. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
AFS-12-458-E August 13, 2012

Exemption No. 10601 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0718

Ms. Caroline Leech

Parent of Jemma Leech

3810 Bellefontaine Street Houston, TX 77025

Dear Ms. Leech:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received July 2, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Jemma Leech for an exemption fr om § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Jemma to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Jemma.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using2

restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Jemma Leech exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B). In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Jemma is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to allow Jemma to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved CRS during use of that CRS aboard a U.S.

aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Jemma’s parents or a caregiver accompanying her. Jemma Leech may only occupy a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind her. In addition, Jemma’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on August 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
§ 1.282 What must you do if information changes after you have received confirmation of a prior notice from FDA? ( a ) ( 1 ) If any of the information required in § 1.281(a), except the information required in: ( i ) Section 1.281(a)(5)(iii) (quantity),
( ii ) Section 1.281(a)(11) (anticipated arrival information), or
( iii ) Section 1.281(a)(17) (planned shipment information), changes after you receive notice that FDA has confirmed your prior notice submission for review, you must resubmit prior notice in accordance with this subpart unless the article of food will not be offered for import or imported into the United States.
( 2 ) If any of the information required in § 1.281(b), except the information required in § 1.281(b)(10) (the anticipated date of mailing), changes after you receive notice that FDA has confirmed your prior notice submission for review, you must resubmit prior notice in accordance with this subpart, unless the article of food will not be offered for import or imported into the United States.
( b ) If you submitted the prior notice via the FDA PNSI, you should cancel the prior notice via the FDA PNSI.
( c ) If you submitted the prior notice via ABI/ACE/ITDS, you should cancel the prior notice via ACE by requesting that CBP cancel the entry.
[73 FR 66402, Nov. 7, 2008, as amended at 82 FR 15629, Mar. 30, 2017]
# EUR-Lex - 31994L0052 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31994L0052

**Directive 94/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 December 1994 amending for the second time Directive 88/344/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States on extraction solvents used in the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients **

*
Official Journal L 331 , 21/12/1994 P. 0010 - 0010 Finnish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 27 P. 0056 Swedish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 27 P. 0056 *

DIRECTIVE 94/52/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 7 December 1994 amending for the second time Directive 88/344/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States on extraction solvents used in the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 100a thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2),

Acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b of the Treaty (3),

Whereas Directive 88/344/EEC (4), deleted from Part III of the Annex, as from 1 January 1994 the solvent cyclohexane, used in the preparation of flavourings;

Whereas, on the basis of complementary information meanwhile received, the Scientific Committee for Food has decided to re-instate its previous temporary acceptance for this substance; whereas the use of the solvent can therefore be continued, pending the definitive opinion of that Committee,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

The Annex to Directive 88/344/EEC is hereby amended as follows:

in Part III: The solvent cyclohexane shall be reinstated with a maximum residue limit of 1mg/kg.

Article 2

1. Member States shall amend their laws, regulations and administrative provisions in such a way as to permit trade in products complying with this Directive at the latest by 7 December 1995.

They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

2. When Member States adopt the measures referred to in paragraph 1, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such a reference shall be laid down by the Member States.

Article 3

This Directive shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 4

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 December 1994.

For the European Parliament The President K. HAENSCH For the Council The President G. REXRODT

(1) OJ No C 15, 18. 1. 1994, p. 17.

(2) OJ No C 133, 16. 5. 1994, p. 21.

(3) Opinion of the European Parliament of 9 February 1994. (OJ No C 61, 28. 2. 1994, p. 101), Council common position of 10 March 1994 (OJ No C 172, 24. 6. 1994, p. 1) and Decision of the European Parliament of 15 September 1994 (OJ No C 276, 3. 10. 1994, p. 13).

(4) OJ No L 157, 24. 6. 1988, p. 28. Directive as amended by Directive 92/115/EEC, (OJ No L 409, 31. 12. 1992, p. 31).
EX-10.09



 







Exhibit 10.09




CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.




Policy Regarding Shareholder Approval of Severance Agreements



Overview: Effective August 3, 2006, the Board of Directors of Cardinal Health,
Inc. (“Cardinal Health”) adopts this policy requiring that Cardinal Health obtain shareholder
approval before entering into Severance Agreements with Covered Executives that provide Severance
Benefits that exceed 2.99 times Base Salary and Bonus as defined and set forth below. If the Board
of Directors determines that it is not practical to obtain shareholder approval in advance, the
Board may seek shareholder approval after entering into such a Severance Agreement.




Effective date: August 3, 2006



Covered Executives: Officers of Cardinal Health as defined under Section 16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, at the time a Severance Agreement covered by this
Policy is approved.



Severance Agreements: Severance Agreements include any agreement that specifies
the compensation payable to a Covered Executive when Cardinal Health terminates employment without
cause or when employment is terminated following a change of control of Cardinal Health. Severance
Agreements include agreements entered into with Covered Executives (a) after the effective date of
the Policy or (b) before the effective date of the Policy, if Severance Benefits are materially
modified after the effective date of the Policy.



Base Salary and Bonus Defined: For purposes of the limit on Severance Benefits:





	 	•	 	Base salary is the annual rate of base salary in effect at termination.
	 
	 	•	 	Bonus is the target incentive amount for the year of termination under the annual and
long-term cash incentive compensation plans applicable to the Covered Executive.




Severance Benefits: For purposes of this Policy, “Severance Benefits” generally
include:





	 	•	 	Cash severance benefits.
	 
	 	•	 	The value of other special benefits or perquisites provided for periods after
termination of employment (but excluding special benefits provided under any program
generally applicable to employees).
	 
	 	•	 	Additional retirement benefits earned or vested under qualified and non-qualified
retirement plans as a result of termination.




 









 






	 	•	 	The value of any special additional benefit or additional service period “credit” under
retirement programs.




Items Excluded as Severance Benefits: For purposes of this Policy, “Severance
Benefits” do not include any benefit or payment required by law and:





	 	•	 	Amounts earned or accrued for services prior to termination (such as pro rata bonus,
unused vacation pay, etc.).
	 
	 	•	 	The value of any other benefits provided under programs generally applicable to
employees.
	 
	 	•	 	The value of “gross-up” payments made in connection with Severance Benefits, including
“gross-up” payments under Section Code 280G of the Internal Revenue Code.
	 
	 	•	 	The value of accelerated vesting of outstanding equity compensation awards, or other
changes in terms of outstanding equity compensation awards.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APP EAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DENISE COLLINS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D15-1885

DWAYNE COLLINS, SR.,

Appellee. ________________________________/

Opinion filed April 1, 2016

A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County, Mark J. Hill, Judge.

Brandon M. Tyson, of Tyson Law Firm, LLC, Altamonte Springs, for Appellant.

Paul W. Darby and Thomas Holden, of Holden & Darby, P.A., Tavares, for A ppellee.

PER CURIAM.

Denise Collins appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marri age that provided,

inter alia , for her former husband to have sole parental responsibility o n decisions

relating to the parties’ minor children’s education and medical care. Although we

conclude that the trial court’s factual findings support its de cision, we remand the case

because the final judgment failed to include a specific finding that shared parental2 responsibility would be detrimental to the children. See Henderson v. Henderson , 162

So. 3d 203, 207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). The final judgment is oth erwise affirmed.

AFFIRMED, IN PART; REVER SED, IN PART; REMANDED.

ORFINGER, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 830 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 17, 2018. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5192) to 

authorize the Commissioner of Social Security to provide confirmation of fraud protection data to certain permitted entities, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment 

in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee 

on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, an amendment 

in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 

Committee Print 115–68 shall be considered as adopted. The 

bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of 

order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. 

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 

bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to 

final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
2 

•HRES 830 EH 

Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Ground-Water Quality of Coastal Aquifer Systems in the West Coast Basin, Los Angeles County, California, 1999-2002  

***By*Michael Land,  Eric G. Reichard,  Steven M. Crawford,Rhett R. Everett,Mark W. Newhouse, andColin F. Williams**

 

 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

 Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5067—ONLINE ONLY

 

Sacramento, California 2004

 In cooperation with the

Water Replenishment District of Southern California

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 250 (Thursday, December 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82380-82381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32841]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2449-000]


Connecticut Gas & Electric, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That 
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 
204 Authorization

December 22, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Connecticut Gas & Electric, Inc.'s application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is January 11, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission,

[[Page 82381]]

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f595a4d5c50717376717a4c6a6f6f706d6b5f797a6d7c31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84c2c1d6c7cbeae8edeae1d7f1f4f4ebf6f0c4e2e1f6e7aae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32841 Filed 12-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ricardo ESCATEL-CHAVEZ, also known as Miguel Rodriguez, Appellant.

No. 04-3766.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 23, 2005.

Decided Sept. 30, 2005.

Mara M. Kohn, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Rapid City, SD, for Appellee.

Monica D. Thomas, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Rapid City, SD, Ricardo Escatel-Chavez, San Antonio, TX, for Appellant.

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo Escatel-Chavez (Escatel) pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court1 explicitly stated that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory only, found Esca-tel was subject to a 16-level enhancement based on a prior conviction, and determined a Guidelines imprisonment range of 57-71 months. The court sentenced Esca-tel to 60 months in prison and 3 years supervised release, after considering the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and concluding that his criminal history and the facts in this case warranted such a sentence.

On appeal, counsel initially moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); counsel now moves to withdraw that motion, and asks to continue this appeal as a *non-Anders*appeal or, alternatively, for remand in light of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw her initial motion to withdraw, but otherwise deny her motion because any possible *Booker*argument fails. The record reveals that the district court properly calculated a sentencing range under advisory Guidelines and considered the sentencing *489factors in section 3553(a), and we conclude the sentence is not unreasonable. *See Booker,*125 S.Ct. at 756-57 (Guidelines are only advisory); *United States v. Pirani,*406 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc) (holding *Booker*error is avoided when district court calculates proper Guidelines sentencing range, treats Guidelines as advisory, and imposes reasonable sentence), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 266, -L.Ed.2d - (2005).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
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.                  

###### Department of Education

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Amalia Cuervo, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 10068, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-6450. Telephone: 202-245-7881. Or by e-mail:                         *amalia.cuervo@ed.gov.*

If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

## VIII. Other Information

*Accessible Format:*                         Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (                        *e.g.,*                         braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the competition contact person listed under                         **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                         in section VII of this notice.                    

*Electronic Access to This Document:*                         You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the                         **Federal Register**                        , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:                         *www.ed.gov/​news/​fedregister.*                         To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.                    

# Note:

                            The official version of this document is the document published in the                             **Federal Register.**                             Free Internet access to the official edition of the                             **Federal Register**                             and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at:                             *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/​nara/​index.html.*

Dated: February 16, 2010.

Kevin Jennings,

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

[FR Doc. 2010-3387 Filed 2-19-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
#### § 1130.2 Applicability of this part.

The types of awards and entities to which this part and other parts in this subchapter apply are described in the subchapter overview at 2 CFR 1126.2.