alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFunding and Strategic Alignment Guidance for Infusing Small Business Innovation Research Technology Into Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Projects at NASA Glenn Research Center for 2015This document is intended to enable the more effective transition of NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) SBIR technologies funded by the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program as well as its companion, the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program into NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) projects. Primarily, it is intended to help NASA program and project managers find useful technologies that have undergone extensive research and development (RRD), through Phase II of the SBIR program; however, it can also assist non-NASA agencies and commercial companies in this process. aviation safety, unmanned aircraft, ground and flight test technique, low emissions, quiet performance, rotorcraftDocument ID20150019737Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsNguyen, Hung D.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Steele, Gynelle C.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Morris, Jessica R.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredOctober 27, 2015Publication DateSeptember 1, 2015Subject CategoryAdministration And ManagementAeronautics (General)Report/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2015-218881GRC-E-DAA-TN25623E-19130Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 471296.01.03.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Keywordsrotorcraft.quiet performanceground and flight test techniqueunmanned aircraftlow emissionsaviation safetyAvailable DownloadsNameType20150019737.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
exv10wc



 







EXHIBIT 10(c)




SUMMARY OF BASE SALARY AND ANNUAL INCENTIVE

COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS




     2007 Base Salary. On February 21, 2007, the Compensation and Management Development Committee
(the “Compensation Committee”) of the Board of Directors of The Sherwin-Williams Company
(“Sherwin-Williams”) set the 2007 base salaries of the executive officers who will be named in the
2006 Summary Compensation Table of Sherwin-Williams’ 2007 Proxy Statement. Base salary increases
are effective in March 2007. The base salaries of the named executive officers for 2007 are as
follows: C.M. Connor, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ($1,158,522); J.G. Morikis, President
and Chief Operating Officer ($658,356); S.P. Hennessy, Senior Vice President – Finance and Chief
Financial Officer ($497,157); T. W. Seitz, Senior Vice President – Strategic Excellence Initiatives
($416,713); and L.E. Stellato, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary ($411,430).



     Annual Incentive Compensation to Be Earned in 2007. The Compensation Committee also approved
the following minimum, target and maximum cash bonus award levels, as a percent of salary, for the
named executive officers for 2007 under The Sherwin-Williams Company 2007 Executive Performance
Bonus Plan (the “2007 Performance Plan”) based upon each such executive officer achieving 75%, 100%
and 125%, respectively, of their performance goals.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Incentive Award as a Percentage of Base Salary
	Named Executive Officer	 	Minimum	 	Target	 	Maximum
	C.M. Connor
	 	40	 	95	 	190
	J.G. Morikis
	 	40	 	75	 	150
	S.P. Hennessy
	 	40	 	75	 	150
	T.W. Seitz
	 	30	 	60	 	  95
	L.E. Stellato
	 	30	 	60	 	  95






     The Compensation Committee also approved a threshold company earnings goal and individual
performance goals for 2007 under the 2007 Performance Plan. Individual performance goals for
Messrs. Connor, Morikis and Hennessy relate to consolidated net sales, diluted earnings per share,
after tax return on shareholders’ equity, free cash flow, working capital as a percent of sales,
and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Mr. Seitz has individual
performance goals relating to consolidated net sales, diluted earnings per share, return on net
assets employed, Six Sigma and Operational Excellence, supply chain strategy, and sourcing
strategy. Mr. Stellato’s individual performance goals relate to consolidated net sales, diluted
earnings per share, budget management, and various legal matters.
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov> To: "Brandon Coomes" <coomesbc@omu.org> Date: 7/22/2010 3:21 PM Subject: Re: Steam EGU Effluent Guidelines Questionnaire Attachments: pic18759.gif; Questionnaire Extension Letter.pdf

Greetings, EPA has reviewed your extension requ est for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire for the Elmer Smith Station. The deadline for your plant to submit Version 2 of the completed questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010. If you need assistance during the completion of the steam electric questionnaire, please contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-7560. Sincerely, (Embedded image moved to file: pic18759.gif)

From: "Brandon Coomes" <coomesbc@omu.org>

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Russ Evans" <EVANSRS@omu.org>, "Kevin Frizzell" <FRIZZELLKD@omu.org>

Date: 07/09/2010 04:07 PM Subject: Steam EGU Effluent Guidelines Questionnaire

Dear Ms. Alicea: Attached is a written letter requesting more time to complete the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines Questionnaire for the Elmer Smith Station - Plant ID: 07483. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards,

Brandon I Coomes Plant Environmental Analyst Owensboro Municipal Utilities Elmer Smith Power StationPhone: 270-926-3200 ext.322 Fax: 270-686-8541(See attached file : Questionnaire Extension Letter.pdf)
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  H ERNAN I SMAEL D ELGADO , Petitioner, No. 03-74442 v. Agency No.



#  A078-461-226 E RIC H. H OLDERJ R ., Attorney General, ORDER

Respondent. 

#  Filed September 2, 2010
ORDER KOZINSKI , Chief Judge: Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

13801
# C_2014235EN.01002301.xml

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/23

---

Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi juice)

(Case T-248/14)

2014/C 235/31

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Masafi Co. LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hd1 Ltd (Huddersfield, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 given in Case R 119/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 given in Case R 119/2013-4;

| — | Order the other party to the proceedings, should it intervene, to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the other party to the proceedings, should it intervene, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal element ‘masafi’ for goods in class 32

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 5 51  560 for the word ‘masafi’

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(a), (b) and 8(5) CTMR

Pleas in law:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
             INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10Q DATED 
             MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
             ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
             STATEMENTS
<MULTIPLIER>                      1000
            
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                            196944
<SECURITIES>                      1189399
<RECEIVABLES>                     80313
<ALLOWANCES>                      4862
<INVENTORY>                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1569984
<PP&E>                            155207
<DEPRECIATION>                    107040
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    2093875
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             207008
<BONDS>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       0
<COMMON>                          225
<OTHER-SE>                        1678657
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      2093875
<SALES>                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  106495
<CGS>                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     86264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   8827
<INCOME-TAX>                      3500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               1980
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                      1980
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                     .09
        

</TABLE>
131 STAT. 78 PUBLIC LAW 115–14—MAR. 27, 2017 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 58: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017): 

Feb. 7, considered and passed House. 

Mar. 7, 8, considered and passed Senate. 

DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2017): 

Mar. 27, Presidential remarks. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–14 

115th Congress 

Joint Resolution 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States 

Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to teacher 

preparation issues. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 

disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Education 

relating to teacher preparation issues (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 

75494 (October 31, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or 

effect. 

Approved March 27, 2017. 

Mar. 27, 2017 

[H.J. Res. 58] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
----

Action brought on 26 September 2006 — Buckingham and Others v Commission

(Case F-116/06)

(2006/C 294/131)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Anne Buckingham (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on infringement of Articles 9 and 13 of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and, as a subsidiary plea, on the unlawfulness of the said provisions in that they result in discrimination and infringe Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 108 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 108

 To refer S. 974 entitled ``A bill for the relief of Richard Kanehl of 
  Mobile, Alabama.'' to the chief judge of the United States Court of 
                  Federal Claims for a report thereon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 18 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

Mr. Mitchell (for Mr. Heflin) submitted the following resolution; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

           September 20 (legislative day, September 7), 1993

                Reported by Mr. Biden, without amendment

           September 21 (legislative day, September 7), 1993

                        Considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To refer S. 974 entitled ``A bill for the relief of Richard Kanehl of 
  Mobile, Alabama.'' to the chief judge of the United States Court of 
                  Federal Claims for a report thereon.

    Resolved, That the bill S. 974 entitled ``A bill for the relief of 
Richard Kanehl of Mobile, Alabama.'' now pending in the Senate, 
together with all the accompanying papers, is referred to the chief 
judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The chief judge 
shall proceed with the same in accordance with the provisions of 
sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28, United States Code, and report 
thereon to the Senate, at the earliest practicable date, giving such 
findings of fact and conclusions thereon as shall be sufficient to 
inform the Congress of the nature and character of the demand as a 
claim, legal or equitable, against the United States or a gratuity and 
the amount, if any, legally or equitably due to the claimants from the 
United States.

                                 <all>
```
#### § 1.702-2 Net operating loss deduction of partner.

For the purpose of determining a net operating loss deduction under section 172, a partner shall take into account his distributive share of items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit of the partnership. The character of any such item shall be determined as if such item were realized directly from the source from which realized by the partnership, or incurred in the same manner as incurred by the partnership. See section 702(b) and paragraph (b) of § 1.702-1. To the extent necessary to determine the allowance under section 172(d)(4) of the nonbusiness deductions of a partner (arising from both partnership and nonpartnership sources), the partner shall separately take into account his distributive share of the deductions of the partnership which are not attributable to a trade or business and combine such amount with his nonbusiness deductions from nonpartnership sources. Such partner shall also separately take into account his distributive share of the gross income of the partnership not derived from a trade or business and combine such amount with his nonbusiness income from nonpartnership sources. See section 172 and the regulations thereunder.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 283 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 283

            Relating to the Capitol Preservation Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 7 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

 Mr. Byrd submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
            Relating to the Capitol Preservation Commission.

Whereas pursuant to title VIII of Public Law 100-696 the United States Capitol 
        Preservation Commission was established to provide for improvements in, 
        preservation of, and acquisitions for, the United States Capitol, and 
        for other purposes; and
Whereas pursuant to section 801(b)(1) of such title the President pro tempore of 
        the Senate is the Senate Cochairman of the Commission: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Cochairman of the Commission may appoint 
an executive secretary of the Senate Membership of the Commission from 
public or private life to serve without compensation and to advise and 
assist the Senate Members of the Commission at the direction of the 
Senate Cochairman.
                                 <all>
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RIKKI A. DAWSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-3749

[November 15, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; John Kastrenakes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2014-CF003625-AXXX-MB.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant 

Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 

West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph D. 

Coronato, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Chapa v. State, 159 So. 3d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

WARNER, TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 1.581-3 Definition of bank prior to September 28, 1962.

Prior to September 28, 1962, for purposes of sections 582 and 584, the term *bank* means a bank or trust company incorporated and doing business under the laws of the United States (including laws relating to the District of Columbia), of any State, or of any Territory, a substantial part of the business of which consists of receiving deposits and making loans and discounts, or of exercising fiduciary powers similar to those permitted to national banks under section 11(k) of the Federal Reserve Act (38 Stat. 262; 12 U.S.C. 248(k)), and which is subject by law to supervision and examination by State, Territorial, or Federal authority having supervision over banking institutions. Such term also means a domestic building and loan association.

[T.D. 6651, 28 FR 4950, May 17, 1963]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6871

JOHN BACCUS, a/k/a John Baccus Roosevelt,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. 

David C. Norton, District Judge. (9:19-cv-00284-DCN)

Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 29, 2020

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Roosevelt Baccus, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Baccus appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and dismissing Baccus’ petition for a writ of mandamus.

*

 We confine 

our review to the issues raised in Baccus’ informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. 

Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; 

under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Baccus v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., No. 9:19-cv-00284-DCN 

(D.S.C. May 4, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* We vacated the district court’s previous order accepting the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation and dismissing Baccus’ petition for a writ of mandamus, and remanded 

the case to permit the district court to conduct a de novo review of the portions of the 

recommendation to which Baccus timely objected. Baccus v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 793 

F. App’x 193 (4th Cir. 2020). This appeal follows the district court’s order dismissing 

Baccus’ petition after considering Baccus’ objections.
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 147

To constitute the minority party’s membership on certain of the standing

committees for the One Hundred Third Congress, or until their successors are chosen.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 30 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 27), 1993

Mr. DOLE submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To constitute the minority party’s membership on certain

of the standing committees for the One Hundred Third

Congress, or until their successors are chosen.

1 Resolved, That the following shall constitute the mi2 nority party’s membership on the following standing com3 mittee for the One Hundred Third Congress, or until their

4 successors are chosen:

5 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS: Mr. Roth,

6 Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cochran, Mr. McCain, and

7 Mr. Bennett.

Æ
#### § 1.43-5 At-risk limitation. [Reserved]
November 12, 2015 

Dear Mr. Payson: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−0315). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) to process your petition. 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) 

which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to 

proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation 

please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 11/27/15. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst