alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Richard S Vickery <Richard.S.Vickery-1@USA.dupont.com>

To: Bill Neuffer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: John A Dege <John.A.Dege@usa.dupont.com>

Date: 01/17/2012 02:24 PM

Subject: DuPont Nitric Acid Plant NOx Data - Beaumont

Bill,

Attached is data concerning NOx emissions from the DuPont Beaumont nitric

acid plant. It is a small, single-pressure plant with NSCR control.

Please note that the CEM NOx data for this plant, and that submitted

yesterday for Pascagoula, contain data associated with periodic CEM QA/QC

activities such as calibrations.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Regards,

Rick

(See attached file: Beaumont NOx.xls)(See attached file: DuPont Beaumont

Data Sheet.doc)

==========================================

Richard S. Vickery, P.E.

Air Quality Consultant

DuPont Engineering Research and Technology (DuET)

DuPont Building - D12036-1

1007 Market Street

Wilmington, DE 19898

(302)774-9829

richard.s.vickery-1@usa.dupont.com

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains

information that may be Privileged, confidential or copyrighted under

applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby

formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,

in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by

return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless explicitly

and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended", this e-mail does

not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance

of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute a consent to the

use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for

transfers of data to third parties.

Francais Deutsch Italiano Espanol Portugues Japanese Chinese Korean

http://www.DuPont.com/corp/email_disclaimer.html
# L_2020342EN.01003201.xml

| 16.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 342/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 342/32

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/330 of 5 March 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 63 of 6 March 2018
  )

On page 43, in Annex I, seventh row in the table ‘PRC COOPERATING EXPORTING PRODUCERS NOT SAMPLED IN THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION’:

for:

‘Jiangsu Wujin Stainless Steel Pipe Group, Co. Ltd, Beijing,’ (TARIC additional code B 242),

read:

‘Jiangsu Wujin Stainless Steel Pipe Group, Co. Ltd, Changzhou,’ (TARIC additional code B 242).

---
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, FAA Docket No. 2014-0546 

vs. 

DGW, Inc., d/b/a Melrose T-Top, lntl, 

Judge: Richard C. AEC E IV ED 

SEP 2 2 2014 

HEARING DOCKET Respondent. 

MOTION TO CHANGE HEARING LOCATION 

Now COMES the Respondent, DGW, Inc., d/b/a Melrose T-Top ("Melrose"), by 

and through its attorneys, GRIFFINIWILLIAMS, LLP, and for its Motion to Change Hearing 

Location, states as follows: 

1. On or about August 19, 2014, the Complainant, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (the "FAA") filed a Complaint against Respondent seeking a proposed 

civil penalty of $38,500 for an alleged violation of 49 § U.S.C. 5123. At the time the 

Complaint was filed, the FAA requested a hearing in Louisville, Kentucky. 

2. 14 C.F .R. § 13 .209(b) provides that, "the person filing an answer should 

suggest a location for the hearing when filing the answer." 

3. Prior to filing the Answer, the hearing was scheduled m Louisville, 

Kentucky. 

4. Both Respondent and its counsel are located in the suburbs of Chicago, 

Illinois and travel to Louisville, Kentucky to participate in the hearing in this cause will 

be an unnecessary expense and burden to Respondent. 

1 
5. Moreover, the FAA has offices in the greater Chicago, Illinois area that 

would be more convenient to Respondent and its counsel. 

6. Additionally, the FAA will not be prejudiced because its counsel and the 

Honorable Administrative Law Judge handling assigned to this matter are not from the 

Louisville, Kentucky area, and are travelling regardless of whether the hearing in this 

cause is in Louisville, Kentucky or Chicago, Illinois. 

WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests that the hearing in this cause 

and venue be located in the greater Chicago, Illinois area. 

Richard L. Williams 

Joshua M. Feagans 

Kristin N. Stone 

GRIFFINIWILLIAMS LLP 

50 l W. State Street, Suite 203 

Geneva, IL 60134 

(630) 457-1205 

(630) 262-0644 facsimile 

One o \~ts attome~ 

\ 

2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the state of Illinois, 

hereby certifY that a copy of the foregoing Answer and Affirmative Defenses was 

deposited in the U.S. Mail, proper postage prepaid and affixed and mailed by Certified 

Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the following persons on September 16, 2014: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Esq. 

Office of Regional General Counsel, AS0-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Southern Region 

1701 ColumbiaAvenue 

College Park, Georgia 30337 

3 

Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

Attn: Patricia Matthews 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 94-1983

CHARLES HOWARD STRAHLER, JR.; PATRICIA ANN STRAHLER; RUTH V. STRAHLER, Officer, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and WIRTH-STRAHLER & SON, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, versus COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, Sales and Use Tax Division; THOMAS J. MACE; ASSISTANT STATE COMPTROLLER; DEBORAH B. BACHARACH; ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, Sales and Use Tax Division, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-94- 864-L) Submitted: February 13, 1996 Decided: March 26, 1996 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Charles Howard Strahler, Jr., Patricia Ann Strahler, Ruth V. Strahler, Appellants Pro Se. Sheldon Howard Laskin, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court's orders dismissing their notice of removal, and denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Appellants' notice of removal, and its denial of Appellants' motion for reconsideration.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
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.10.7



FIRST AMENDMENT 
TO THE 
VENTAS, INC. 2012 INCENTIVE PLAN




THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to the Ventas, Inc. 2012 Incentive Plan (effective as of January 1, 2013) (the “Plan”) was approved on February 9, 2017, by the Board of Directors of Ventas, Inc., a Delaware corporation, pursuant to the authority reserved to it under Section 12.3 of the Plan, to be effective as of January 1, 2017.


WITNESSETH THAT:


		
	1.
	Section 15.2 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




“15.2.  Share Withholding.  If the Company has a withholding obligation upon the grant or issuance of Shares or OP Units under the Plan, a Participant, subject to the discretion of the Committee, may elect to satisfy the withholding requirement, in whole or in part, by having the Company withhold Shares having a Fair Market Value on the date the withholding tax is to be determined equal to the amount required to be withheld (as determined by the Company with the Participant’s consent), so long as the withheld amount does not exceed the maximum statutory tax rates (including payroll or similar taxes as required by the applicable tax law) for the Participant in the applicable jurisdiction (e.g., federal, state and local).”


		
	2.
	Except to the extent hereby amended, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

POWER DENSITY SOLUTI ONS LLC, JAMES HILDEBRANDT, Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1957

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims

in No. 1:21

- cv

- 00911

- AOB, Judge Armando O. Bonilla.

______________________

ON MOTI ON

______________________

Before D YK

, C UNNINGHAM

, and S TARK

, Circuit Judges

.
C UNNINGHAM

, Circuit Judge

.
O R D E R

The United States Court of Federal Claims entered judgment in this case on March 21, 2023. On May 23, 2023, appellants filed their notice of appeal from that judgment.The United States moves to dismiss this appeal as untimely. The appellants have not re sponded. Case: 23-1957 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 10/26/2023POWER DENSITY SOLUTI ONS LLC v. US 2

To be timely, a party must file an appeal within 60 days of the final judgment or order being appealed from the

Court of Federal Claims. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2107, 2522; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Fed Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(C). This time limit is “a jur isdictional requirement” and “not subject to equitable tolling.” Marandola v. United States , 518 F.3d 913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Here, the notice of appeal was due no later than May 22, 2023. Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). Because t he notice of appeal was not received within that time, we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) The parties shall bear their own costs.

October 26

, 2023

Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court Case: 23-1957 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 10/26/2023
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: 10/2 /2014 TO: C lean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket I d: OAR

–2013
- 0602 FROM: Mi ke Gordon , EPA Region 3 SUBJECT: 9/25 /14 Meeting with Newport News Citizens sponsored by the American Lung Association
**SUMMARY** A meeting was held between the EPA and the general public in Newport News, Virginia on September 25 , 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
. The C lean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.
**ATTENDEES** Mike Gordon, EPA Region 3* Emily L inn, EPA Region 3* Tiana Blount, EPA Region 3 Holly Wilson, OAQPS* Dr. Erica Holloman, American Lung Association Members of the public *Called in via conference line
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-50884

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

PERFECTO MALDONADO, also known as Fernando Farjardo Solorzano, 

also known as Perfecto Morales Maldonado, 

also known as Perfect Maldonado-Moraks, also known as Pepe Maldonado, 

also known as Perfecto Maldonado-Morales,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 1:18-CR-278-1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Perfecto Maldonado appeals the within-guidelines sentence of 21 months

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 29, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-50884 Document: 00514894887 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2019
No. 18-50884

2

that he received for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges that sentence as unconstitutional because it exceeds the statutory maximum in § 1326(a) and because the conviction used to increase the sentence 

under § 1326(b)(2) was not alleged in the indictment. Maldonado concedes that 

this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 

224, 235, 239 (1998). E.g., United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 

2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). 

He seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review.

The government moves for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an 

extension of time to file its brief. Because the sole issue presented is foreclosed, 

summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 

406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the government’s motion for 

summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of 

time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-50884 Document: 00514894887 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000945770
<NAME> EVEREN CAPITAL CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      19,995,000
<SECURITIES>                               143,579,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              112,236,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      47,423,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,169,256,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      271,000,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       361,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 408,275,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,169,256,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           809,630,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           659,512,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          54,205,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            115,693,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                44,358,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         71,335,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                71,335,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.01
        

</TABLE>
JEFF L. ROSE, CHIEF JUSTICE

DAVID PURYEAR, JUSTICE

BOB PEMBERTON, JUSTICE

MELISSA GOODWIN, JUSTICE

SCOTT K. FIELD. JUSTICE

CINDY OLSON HOURLAND, JUSTICE

The Honorable Velva L. Price

Criminal District Clerk

Travis County Courthouse

P.O.Box 1748

Austin, TX 78767

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number

Trial Court Case Number:

Style: Teresa Perez

v. The State of Texas

Court of Appeals

Third District of Texas

P.O. BOX 12547, AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711-2547

www.txcourte.gov/3rdcoa.aspx

(512) 463-1733

MarcJr5;2015

03-12-00041-CR

D-l -DC-10-301246

JEFFREY D. KYLE, CLERK

Dear Honorable Velva L. Price:

The Third Court of Appeals has issued the mandate in this cause. Therefore, I am returning

the following original exhibits:

Supplemental Clerk's Record with State's Exhibits 3 & 4 (DVDs).

Filed In The District Court

of Travis County,.Texas

on J2u£Z2s*i

at / / M

Velva L. Price, District Clerk

Very truly yours,

frnc

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk
Editorial Note on Part 172
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 172 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 172.626 Salts of carrageenan. The food additive salts of carrageenan may be safely used in food in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The food additive consists of carrageenan, meeting the provisions of § 172.620, modified by increasing the concentration of one of the naturally occurring salts (ammonium, calcium, potassium, or sodium) of carrageenan to the level that it is the dominant salt in the additive.
( b ) The food additive is used or intended for use in the amount necessary for an emulsifier, stabilizer, or thickener in foods, except for those standardized foods that do not provide for such use.
( c ) To assure safe use of the additive, the label and labeling of the additive shall bear the name of the salt of carrageenan that dominates the mixture by reason of the modification, e.g., “sodium carrageenan”, “potassium carrageenan”, etc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6930

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALBERT SHAW NELSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (5:95-cr-00333-CMC; 5:99-cv-04168-CMC)

Submitted: October 19, 2007 Decided: November 8, 2007

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Shaw Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Albert Shaw Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration

of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.

2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Nelson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

grant leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and 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.

DISMISSED
| §   | Lead      independent director annual retainer -$60,000 |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|

| §   | Non-employee      director annual retainer - $35,000 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------|

| §   | Audit      Committee chairman - $20,000 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------|

| §   | Audit      Committee membership - $10,000 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------|

| §   | Compensation      Committee chairman - $15,000 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------|

| §   | Compensation      Committee membership - $7,500 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------|

| §   | Nominating      and Corporate Governance Committee chairman -  $15,000 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| §   | Nominating      and Corporate Governance Committee membership -  $7,500 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| §   | Strategic      Planning Committee chairman -$15,000 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|

| Directors      may, at their option, receive equity grants in lieu of the cash      compensation above.  All directors are reimbursed for reasonable      out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending Board and committee meetings      and director education programs. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
 
     MiniMed Distribution Corp., a Delaware corporation
 
     MiniMed International, Inc., a Barbados corporation
 
     MiniMed SA, a French corporation
 
     MiniMed GmbH, a German corporation
 
     Dartec AB, a Swedish corporation
 
     Home Medical Supply, Inc., a Florida corporation
 
     Home Medical Supply, Inc., a Georgia corporation
 
     Home Medical Supply, Inc., a Tennessee corporation
 
     Home Medical Supply, Inc., a California corporation
 
     Home Medical Supply of Michigan, Inc., a Michigan corporation
 
     HMS, Inc., an Alabama corporation
 
     Pharmax, Inc., a Florida corporation
     d/b/a Home Medical Supply, Inc.
 
     South Broward Medical Arts Pharmacy, Inc., a Florida corporation
 
     Clark Pharmacy, Inc., a Georgia corporation
 
     Clark Wholesale Co., a Florida corporation
 
     Diabetix Depot, Inc., a Florida corporation
 
     Dialysis Management Services, Inc., a Florida corporation
 
     Medical Management & Marketing of South Florida, a Florida corporation