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



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 AND FROM THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         460,019
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,361
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      10,753,715
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,380,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                      5,318,365
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,839,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,380,846
<SALES>                                        484,230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               488,183
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  352,688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             111,902
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,556)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,556)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,556)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>THE PARTNERSHIP HAS AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET; THEREFORE, THE VALUE IS $0.
<F2>THIS INFORMATION IS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE PARTNERSHIP'S FORM 10-Q FILING
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
From: Lapcevic, Joseph P
To: Jordan, Ronald
Cc: Thomas Finseth ; Schroeder, Cuc ; Flanders, Phillip ; Cannon, William E Subject: RE: Available for a short call on Monday?
Date: Monday, June 02, 2014 10:21:48 AM

Ron, I reviewed my original raw data download and in regards to question # 1 below, the values on the 5/13/2014 spreadsheet are correct (12.2, 42.4, 14.4, & 17). My original download file had data in both ng/L and ug/L. I assume I made an error with the conversion my first time through on these 4 samples. Regarding question #3, the correct dates are 11/29/2012; 12/19/2012; & 12/21/2012. It appears I moved the data for the three samples in those two columns (Hg 245.1 & As 200.8) down an extra three rows, which misaligned the collection/sample dates. I have no explanation for question # 2. I left a message for Randy Jones and will try to contact a few others that are still around that may have a recollection of what may have been happening during that time frame (2/28/2012 through 4/3/2012, plus 6/5/2012). Hopefully, I’ll have more to report during our 2:30pm call today. 

### Joe Lapcevic Supervisor, Water Permitting (724) 838 – 6099 work (234) 678 – 2385 fax FirstEnergy Corp. 800 Cabin Hill Drive Greensburg, PA 15601-1689

From: Jordan, Ronald [mailto:Jordan.Ronald@epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 12:20 PM

To: Lapcevic, Joseph P

Cc: Thomas Finseth; Schroeder, Cuc; Flanders, Phillip Subject: Available for a short call on Monday?

Joe,
Are you available for a short call on Monday? We have just a few more questions, including these listed below:

1. Comparing the data you provided on 5/2/2014 and 5/13/2014, we observed apparent data entry errors. Please specify which values for mercury Chem Precip Effluent are correct.

Date 5/2/2014 dataset (Hg, ng/L) 5/13/2014 dataset (Hg, ng/L) 12/20/2011 122 12.2 1/3/2012 424 42.4 2/2/2012 144 14.4 2/21/2012 170 17

2. What is the cause for elevated mercury concentrations for Chem Precip Effluent on the following dates?a. 2/28/2012 (1520 ng/L) b. 3/13/2012 (1160 ng/L)

c. 3/20/2012 (1710 ng/L) d. 3/27/2012 (1320 ng/L)

e. 4/3/2012 (3400 ng/L) f. 6/5/2012 (830 ng/L)

3. We noticed dates for Method 245.1 (mercury) data and Method 200.8 (arsenic) data changed between your original spreadsheet provided 2/20/2014 and the updated spreadsheets provided 5/2/2014 and 5/13/2014. Specifically, the 2/20/2014 spreadsheet shows the 245.1 and 200.8 data on 12/18/12, 1/4/13, and 1/8/13; the 5/2/2014 spreadsheet shows these data on 11/29/12, 12/19/12, and 12/21/12. Which dates are correct?



### The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.5



FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE REALPAGE, INC.
2010 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


(Amended and Restated Effective June 4, 2014, as further amended)
This Fourth Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the RealPage, Inc. (the “Corporation”) 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended and restated June 4, 2014 (as further amended, the “Plan”) is adopted as of February 16, 2017 (the “Date of Amendment”) by the Board.  All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them by the Plan.
Effective as of the Date of Amendment, the Plan is amended as follows:
1.    Annual Award to Outside Directors.  Sections 12(c) and 12(d) of the Plan are hereby amended and restated to read in their entirety as follows: 
(c)  Annual Award.  Each Outside Director will be automatically granted (an “Annual Award”) on April 1 of each year, beginning in 2017, a number of Shares of Restricted Stock determined by dividing (A) $200,000 by (B) the average of the Fair Market Value of a share on each of the 30 trading days immediately preceding (and excluding) the grant date, with the number of Shares rounded up to the nearest whole Share.  If the initial election or appointment of such Outside Director occurs on any date other than April 1st, such Outside Director will also be automatically granted a prorated portion of the Annual Award on the date of such election or appointment.  The prorated number of Shares of Restricted Stock shall be determined based on the number of complete months remaining between the date of election or appointment and the next April 1st. 
(d)  Terms.  The terms of each Award granted pursuant to this Section will be as follows:  The Restricted Stock awarded under each Annual Award will be issued for no cash consideration and will be forfeited and automatically transferred to and reacquired by the Corporation at no cost upon the date the Director ceases to provide services as a member of the Board (the “Forfeiture Provision”).  The Forfeiture Provision will lapse as to twenty-five percent (25%) of the Restricted Stock awarded in such Annual Award on the first day of each calendar quarter for four (4) calendar quarters beginning on the first day of the calendar quarter immediately following the date of grant, provided that the Participant continues to serve as a Director through such dates. 
2.    Miscellaneous.  Except as expressly amended hereby, the terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, without reference to principles of conflict of laws.
RealPage, Inc., by its duly authorized officer, has executed this Fourth Amendment to the Plan on the date indicated below.


REALPAGE, INC.


By: /s/ Stephen T. Winn    
Stephen T. Winn
Chief Executive Officer
Chairman of the Board


Date:  February 16, 2017
§ 500.1410 N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone. ( a ) *Standard for residues.* No residues of *n*-methyl-2-pyrrolidone may be found in the uncooked edible tissues of cattle and swine as determined by methods in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Incorporation by reference.* The standards required in this section are incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the Food and Drug Administration's Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. It may be obtained from the sources indicated elsewhere in paragraph (b) of this section and at: *https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-veterinary-medicine/cvm-foia-electronic-reading-room .* It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email *fr.inspection@nara.gov ,* or go to: *www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html .* ( 1 ) Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-7002. ( i ) “Method of Analysis: *N*-methyl-2-pyrrolidone,” September 26, 2011; the method of analysis for uncooked edible tissues of cattle.
( ii ) [Reserved]
( 2 ) Merck Animal Health, 29160 Intervet Lane, Millsboro, DE 19966, 1-800-211-3573. ( i ) “Determinative and Confirmatory Procedures for the Analysis of N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) in Swine Liver Tissue using LC-MS/MS,” July 20, 2017; the method of analysis for uncooked edible tissues of swine.
( ii ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See §§ 522.814, 522.955, and 522.1660a of this chapter.
[87 FR 10966, Feb. 28, 2022, as amended at 88 FR 55562, Aug. 16, 2023]
38801.

#### CARMICHAEL v. TIMOTHY.

Decided June 23, 1961.

*17
      *Powell, Goldstein, Fraser & Murphy, Frank Love, Jr., Robert E. Coll,*for plaintiff in error.

*N. Forrest Montet,*contra.

Bell, Judge.

The first question to be determined is whether the trial court improperly overruled the defendant’s general demurrer, for if that ruling was error, the other proceedings were nugatory and the errors assigned as to them need not be reviewed.

1. With modifications, the doctrine that negligence of the plaintiff contributing to his injuries produced by the combined negligence of the plaintiff and defendant will bar the plaintiff from recovery is generally recognized throughout the United States. Prosser, Law of Torts, 2 Ed. § 51. While it has been criticized (and no one theory can ever fully explain the doc*18trine of contributory negligence), at least one justification for the view may be found in the idea that the plaintiff should not be permitted to recover for injuries which his- own misconduct has assisted in producing, nor should he be permitted to complain where he has been guilty of the same type of misconduct with which he charges the defendant.

According to the allegations of the petition, it is clearly shown that the log over which the plaintiff fell was used as an aid in parking vehicles in the parking lot, and that the plaintiff fell over it when walking while she could not see it. Several cases involving similar situations where plaintiffs have fallen over parking lot dividers have been before this court recently. In *Ely v. Barbizon Towers, Inc.,*101 Ga. App. 872 (115 SE2d 616), this court held that under the allegations of the petition the presence of 4x4 timbers placed in such a way as to act as “stops” for automobiles in a parking area did not create an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff. In *McHugh v. Trust Co. of Ga.,*102 Ga. App. 412 (116 SE2d 512), the plaintiff fell over a “cement separator” in the parking lot of the defendant bank. In the *McHugh*case it was held that the petition did not show a risk of unreasonable danger or that the defendant could have reasonably foreseen danger to an invitee on the property; that dividers separating lanes of traffic or setting apart parking spaces or property boundaries or parking lots can be anticipated by persons traversing a parking lot; and that the maintenance of these structures does not constitute negligence. In both the *Ely*and the *McHugh*cases, the injuries sued upon occurred in the daylight hours. Since it has been held that the existence of dividers in parking lots is not negligence in daylight, it would be ridiculous to hold it to be negligence to have them present at night. It follows that there is a duty on the part of parking lot users to anticipate the presence of parking dividers, day or night. See also *McMullen v. Kroger Co.,*84 Ga. App. 195 (65 SE2d 420).

Under the authority of these cases cited, the use of a log divider of the type described in the petition would not be negligence. For this reason, the general demurrer of the defendant should have been sustained.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C.J., and Hall, J., concur.*
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1





Amendment to The Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC 2013 Incentive Plan
The Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC 2013 Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows, effective May 9, 2017:
		
	1.
	Subsection (a) of Section 4 of the Plan by deleting and replacing it with the following:


“Subject to Section 5, the maximum number of Class A Shares that may be delivered pursuant to Awards shall be 231,250,788 Class A Shares, as increased on the first day of each fiscal year beginning in fiscal year 2018 by a number of Class A Shares equal to 15 percent (15%) of the increase, if any, in the number of outstanding Class A Shares from the number of outstanding Class A Shares on the first day of the immediately preceding fiscal year (in each case, calculated assuming the exchange of all Och-Ziff Operating Group A Units, Och-Ziff Operating Group D Units and Och-Ziff Operating Group P Units (each as defined in the LLC Agreement) for Class A Shares).
		
	2.
	Except as amended above, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE01118

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
# C_2019016EN.01003501.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology v Commission

(Case T-793/14) (1)

((State aid - United Kingdom capacity market - Aid scheme - Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU - Concept of doubts within the meaning of Article 4(3) or (4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 - Decision not to raise any objections - No initiation of the formal investigation procedure - Procedural rights of interested parties))

(2019/C 16/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Tempus Energy Ltd (Worcester, United Kingdom) and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd (Cheltenham, United Kingdom) (represented by: initially J. Derenne, J. Blockx, C. Ziegler and M. Kinsella, subsequently J. Derenne, J. Blockx and C. Ziegler, and finally J. Derenne and C. Ziegler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, R. Sauer, K. Herrmann and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially C. Brodie and L. Christie, acting as Agents, and G. Facenna QC, subsequently S. Simmons, M. Holt, C. Brodie and S. Brandon, acting as Agents, and G. Facenna QC, subsequently M. Holt, C. Brodie, S. Brandon and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and G. Facenna QC, and finally S. Brandon, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5083 final of 23 July 2014 not to raise objections to the aid scheme for the capacity market in the United Kingdom, on the ground that that scheme is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (State aid 2014/N-2) (OJ 2014 C 348, p. 5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 5083 final of 23 July 2014 not to raise objections to the aid scheme for the capacity market in the United Kingdom, on the ground that that scheme is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (State aid 2014/N-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 5083 final of 23 July 2014 not to raise objections to the aid scheme for the capacity market in the United Kingdom, on the ground that that scheme is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (State aid 2014/N-2);

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Tempus Energy Ltd and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Tempus Energy Ltd and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.

---
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 Commerce

###### International Trade Administration

# AGENCY:

International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice.

## Timeframe for Recruitment and Applications

                    Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the                     **Federal Register**                    , posting on the Commerce Department trade mission calendar (                    *http://www.ita.doc.gov/​doctm/​tmcal.html*) and other Internet web sites, press releases to general and trade media, direct mail, broadcast fax, notices by industry trade associations and other multiplier groups, and publicity at industry meetings, symposia, conferences, and trade shows. The Commerce Department's Office of Business Liaison and the International Trade Administration will explore and welcome outreach assistance from other interested organizations, including other U.S. Government agencies.                

                    Recruitment for this mission will begin immediately upon approval. Applications can be completed on-line at the Clean Energy Business Development Missions' Web site at                     *http://www.trade.gov/​CleanEnergyMission*                     or can be obtained by contacting the U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Business Liaison (202-482-1360 or                    *CleanEnergyMission@doc.gov*). The application deadline has been extended to Friday, March 12, 2010. Completed applications should be submitted to the Office of Business Liaison. Applications received after Friday, March 12, 2010 will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.                

## Contacts

                    The Office of Business Liaison, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 5062, Washington, DC 20230, Tel: 202-482-                          ( print page 9182)                        1360, Fax: 202-482-4054, E-mail:                     *CleanEnergyMission@doc.gov.*

Sean Timmins,

Global Trade Programs, Commercial Service Trade Missions Program.

[FR Doc. 2010-4127 Filed 2-26-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
38773.

#### MERRY BROTHERS BRICK & TILE COMPANY v. NEELY.

Decided April 10, 1961

Rehearing denied May 2,1961.

*Hull, Willingham, Towill & Norman, Walter A. Reiser, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Eugene M. Kerr,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

Where the claimant’s husband died of a heart attack while on the job, having been advised by a physician following an earlier diagnosis of angina pectoris and coronary insufficiency that he could continue to drive a truck in his employment if he felt like it, decedent’s failure to notify his employer of his heart condition and his continuing to drive a loaded truck with knowledge of his condition did not amount to such “wilful misconduct,” under *Code*§ 114-105 as to bar claimant’s claim for compensation under the Georgia Workmen’s Compensation Act.

“The general rule is that mere violations of instructions, orders, rules, ordinances and statutes, and the doing of hazardous acts where the danger is obvious, do not, without more, as a matter of law, constitute wilful misconduct. Such violations or failures or refusals generally constitute mere negligence, and such negligence, however great, does not constitute wilful misconduct or wilful failure or refusal to perform a duty . . . and will not defeat recovery of compensation.” *Armour & Co. v. Little,*83 Ga. App. 762 (64 S. E. 2d 707).

The cases urged by the plaintiff in error as authority for the proposition that decedent’s conduct was “wilful misconduct,” i.e., *Hall v. Kendall,*81 Ga. App. 592 (59 S. E. 2d 421), and *Tift v. State,*17 Ga. App. 663 (88 S. E. 41) involve criminal acts. While some wilful acts may bar a recovery even if they are not criminal acts, we are not prepared to say that the proba*617bility of decedent’s having a heart attack was so great, in view of the doctor’s advice, that his continuing to drive under these circumstances amounted to “wilful misconduct,” since he had had but one attack and had followed his doctor’s advice in not engaging in strenuous exercise, such as loading and unloading bricks.

As^to the contention of the plaintiff in error that failure to notify his employer of his condition constituted wilful misconduct, it has been held that it is immaterial that the physical exertion engaged in by an employee is not unusual or excessive, and that the employer did not know about the employee’s diseased condition. *Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co. v. Griggs,*190 Ga. 277 (9 S. E. 2d 84); *Williams v. Maryland Cas. Co.,*67 Ga. App. 649 (21 S. E. 2d *478); Bussey v. Globe Indem. Co.,*81 Ga. App. 401 (59 S. E. 2d 34).

Where an award of compensation is supported by any competent evidence it is binding on the courts, *Bussey v. Globe Indem. Co.,*supra, therefore, the lower court did not err in affirming the award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation. The motion by the defendant in error that damages be assessed against the plaintiff in error for a frivolous appeal is denied.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols-and Bell, JJ., concur.*