alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Miller, William [mailto:wmiller@McCarter.com] 

Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 8:49 AM

To: Cohen, Daniel

Cc: Cymbalsky, John

Subject: DOE Posting Practices

Dan: it has come to our attention that DOE is revising posted materials with no notice to the public 

either that a change has been made or what the change is. This practice, an example of which is 

provided below, is extremely prejudicial and harmful to those trying to understand the basis for DOE 

actions and needs to be corrected as soon as possible. DOE provided notice on September 22, 2014, 

that it was posting its preliminary draft life cycle spreadsheet in the remanded furnace proceeding at the 

following site: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031-0002. 

Needless to say, interested parties like APGA have dedicated a lot of man-hours attempting to analyze 

and understand this spreadsheet. However, it turns out that sometime after September 22, DOE posted 

another (amended) spreadsheet at that site (see attached example pages), and it did so with no notice 

to the public that this was occurring or what the change or changes were. Thus, analysis of the original 

spreadsheet performed after the new spreadsheet was posted (whenever that was) focused on the 

wrong spreadsheet and potentially resulted in a work product that cannot be used because it is no 

longer accurate. We learned of this no-notice switch by pure happenstance, and while we now know 

that some “Summary Switching” data from the original spreadsheet has changed, we have no idea 

either why or what other data may have changed. Trying to make that determination could take 

countless hours (which could then be overtaken by yet another unannounced posting). You may recall 

that APGA ran into this practice of re-posting with no notice during the DFR proceeding (see APGA Jan. 

13, 2014 Initial Br. at 13-14), but we failed to appreciate that this was standard operating procedure for 

DOE. This practice is intolerable from the standpoint of interested members of the public attempting to 

understand what and why DOE is proposing to do or not do something. We respectfully request that 

DOE immediately amend its practice such that whenever a revised document is posted, the public be 

given timely notice of the revised posting and informed as to what the revisions are. APGA appreciates 

your prompt consideration of this request as well as a response indicating whether DOE intends to heed 

this request. Bud

William T. Miller | Partner

McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP

1015 15th Street, NW, 12th Floor | Washington DC, 20005

T: 202-753-3420

F: 202-354-4658

wmiller@mccarter.com | www.mccarter.com

BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK 

EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC

This email message from the law firm of McCarter & English, LLP is for the sole use of the 

intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized 

review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please 

contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10(b)
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
TO THE
HARRIS CORPORATION 
2005 SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN


WHEREAS, Harris Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), heretofore has adopted and maintains the Harris Corporation 2005 Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, as amended and restated effective November 28, 2011 (the “Plan”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.1 of the Plan, the Employee Benefits Committee of the Corporation (the “Employee Benefits Committee”) has the authority to adopt non-material amendments to the Plan;  
WHEREAS, the Employee Benefits Committee desires to amend the Plan to clarify its provisions regarding termination of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Employee Benefits Committee has determined that the above-described amendment is non-material.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Section 8.1 of the Plan hereby is amended, effective as of the date hereof, as follows:
Section 8.1.  Amendment and Termination.  Subject to Section 6.7, (i) at any time the Compensation Committee may adopt amendments to the SERP (irrespective of whether such amendments are material or nonmaterial) or may terminate the SERP (in its entirety or in part), and (ii) at any time the Committee may adopt nonmaterial amendments to the SERP or may terminate the SERP with respect to Participants who have experienced a “change in control event” within the meaning of Treasury Regulation §1.409A-3(i)(5).  To the extent consistent with the rules relating to plan termination and liquidation under section 409A of the Code, the Compensation Committee or Committee, as applicable, may provide that following the termination of the SERP (or portion thereof), each impacted Participant or beneficiary shall receive a single sum payment in cash equal to the balance of his or her vested Account.  The single sum payment shall be made within sixty (60) days following the date the SERP (or portion thereof) is terminated and shall be in lieu of any other benefit which may be payable to the Participant or beneficiary under the SERP.  Unless so distributed, in the event of a SERP termination, the Corporation shall continue to maintain Participant Accounts until distributed pursuant to the terms of the SERP.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, no amendment or termination of the SERP shall reduce or cancel any vested amount credited to any Participant’s Account.    









APPROVED by the HARRIS CORPORATION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE on this 16th day of December, 2016.
	
			
	/s/ Adam Histed

	Adam Histed, Chairperson








2
# AGENCY:

 Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, Department of Labor.

# ACTION:

 Correction.

# SUMMARY:

 In notice document 99-33599 beginning on page 72696 in the issue of Tuesday, December 28, 1999, make the following correction:

On page 72697 in the first column in the second paragraph, the submission date for written comments was on or before January 27, 2000.  It should be changed to read on or before February 28, 2000.

Dated: January 19, 2000.

Gerald B. Lindrew, 

Deputy Director, Office of Policy and Research Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration.

[FR Doc. 00-1637 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 4510-29-M
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40100 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
RICARDO GUZMAN

- GIL, also known as Richardo Guzmangil , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:13

- CR

- 913

- 1

Before KING, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ricardo Guzman

Gil has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Guzman

- Gil h a s filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Guzman

- Gil’s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 12, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40100 Document: 00512966524 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2015No. 14

- 40100

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review . Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-40100 Document: 00512966524 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2015
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 864 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 864

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the State 
                   ceiling on private activity bonds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 1999

 Mr. Houghton (for himself, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mrs. Johnson of 
 Connecticut, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Watkins, Mr. 
Cook, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Tanner, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. 
 Shows, Mr. Dixon, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Weygand, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Leach, 
Mr. McHugh, Mr. Foley, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Bass, Mr. Dooley 
 of California, Mr. Kuykendall, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Levin, Mr. McInnis, Mr. 
  Lantos, Mr. Coyne, Ms. Rivers, Mr. Doyle, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. 
   Waxman, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. English, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Cardin, Mrs. 
  Thurman, Mr. Lazio, and Mr. McNulty) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the State 
                   ceiling on private activity bonds.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State and Local Investment 
Opportunity Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN VOLUME CAP ON PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 146(d) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to State ceiling) are amended 
to read as follows:
            ``(1) In general.--The State ceiling applicable to any 
        State for any calendar year shall be the greater of--
                    ``(A) an amount equal to $75 multiplied by the 
                State population, or
                    ``(B) $225,000,000.
        Subparagraph (B) shall not apply to any possession of the 
        United States.
            ``(2) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of a calendar year 
        after 2000, each of the dollar amounts contained in paragraph 
        (1) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
                    ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
                    ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined 
                under section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by 
                substituting `calendar year 1999' for `calendar year 
                1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
        If any increase determined under the preceding sentence is not 
        a multiple of $1 ($250 in the case of the dollar amount in 
        paragraph (1)(B)), such increase be rounded to the nearest 
        multiple thereof.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to calendar years after 1999.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Emtec, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ending February 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dinesh R. Desai, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




/s/
                Dinesh R. DesaiChief
                Executive OfficerApril
                14, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lamont Burrell, Appellant.

[628 NYS2d 553]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), rendered December 3, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

No reversible error took place by a police officer’s testimony explaining his presence at the courtyard of the housing project where the defendant was arrested *(see, People v Estrada,*187 AD2d 727; *People v Burrus,*182 AD2d 634). The trial court’s instructions to the jury that the officer’s testimony was admitted only to explain his presence on the scene effectively eliminated any prejudice to the defendant *(see, People v Burrus, supra; People v Love,*92 AD2d 551).

The defendant’s challenge to the prosecutor’s comments on summation is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Balls,*69 NY2d 641; *People v Bruen,*136 AD2d 648). In any event, the prosecutor’s comments in the main were a fair response to the defense counsel’s own scathing remarks *(see, People v Perez,*132 AD2d 579). Although, as the People properly concede, some of the language used was inappropriate, the prosecutor’s remarks do not warrant reversal *(see, People v White,*196 AD2d 641; *People v Street,*124 AD2d 841).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

Finally, the defendant’s challenge to the mandatory surcharge is premature *(see, People v Burke,*204 AD2d 345). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
§ 301-70.601 What factors should we consider in determining whether to authorize payment of transportation and subsistence expenses for threatened law enforcement/investigative employees? You should consider: ( a ) *The degree and seriousness of the threat.* You should pay transportation and subsistence expenses only if a situation poses a legitimate serious threat to life.
( b ) *The option of relocating the employee.* You should consider whether relocating the employee permanently would be advantageous given the specific nature of the threat, the continued disruption of the family, and the alternative costs of a change of official station.
#### § 51-8.11 Other Rights and Services.

Nothing in this part shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.
EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of the undersigned registrant (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  Date: March 31, 2010  American International Ventures, Inc.  /s/ Myron Goldstein Myron Goldstein Chief Financial Officer  /s/ Steven Davis Steven Davis Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

November 22, 2005 

### Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer California Air Resources Board Post Office Box 28 15 Sacramento, CA 958 12
Dear Ms. Witherspoon: On October 20,2005, CARB submitted revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We have reviewed materials submitted with the following rules and found that they hlfill the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51,Appendix V.



# I Great Basin 

# 1 405 

# 1 Exceptions 

# I

APCDIAQMD Great Basin 

# I Great Basin 

# 1 502 

# 1 Conservation Management Practices 

# I I

SanJoaquii~ Valley 

# 1 4 103 

# 1 Open Burning 

# I Rule # 2 16



## [

# an Joaquin Valley 

## ( 4702 

# 1 Internal Combustion Engines 

### - Phase 2 

# I Rule Title New Source Review Requirements For Determining Impact On Air Quality Secondary Sources



# ISouth Coast 12001 

# I Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) 

### - Applicability 

# I South Coast South Coast South Coast South Coast South Coast South Coast South Coast
South Coast 

# I

South Coast 

# I 2005 

# I Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) 

### - New Source Review for RECLAIM 

# I ISouth Coast 

# 1 2007 

# 1 Trading Requirements 

# I Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) 

### - 403 46 1 463 1302 1303 1306 1309
2000

Prinred on Recycled Paper Fugitive Dust Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing Organic Liquid Storage New Source Review 

### - Definitions New Source Review

## - Requirements New Source Review 

### - Emissions Calculations New Source Review 

### - Emission Reduction Credits and Short Term Credits Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) 

### - GeneralSouth Coast

south Coast 

# 1 2012

I yolo-solano 

# 1 2.21 Regional CleanAir Incentives Market (RECLAIM)

### - Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting and Recordkeepingfor Oxides of Sulfur (Sox) Emissions Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM)

## - Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting and Recordkeeping for Oxides ofNitrogen @ox) Emissions Organic Liquid Storage and Transfer


### This addresses all revisions in this submittal. 

### In the coming months we will review the complete revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 1 1 O(k). Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed,toCynthia G. Allen at (415) 947-4120. Sincerely,

\ - 

### ~irecfor, Air Division

cc: Mr. Ted Schade,APCO Great Basin APCD
Mr. David 

### L. Crow, APCO San Joaquin ValleyAPCD
Dr. Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer South Coast AQMD
Mr. Mat Ehrhardt,APCO Yolo-SolanoAQMD
Mr. Jorge 

### L. Fernandez, Chief Program Evaluation Branch, CARB
#### § 302-4.200 What per diem rate will I receive for en route relocation travel within CONUS?

Your *per diem* for en route relocation travel between your old and new official stations will be at the standard CONUS rate (*see* applicable FTR Per Diem Bulletins available on the Internet at *https://www.gsa.gov/perdiem*). You will be reimbursed in accordance with §§ 301-11.100 through 301-11.102 of this title.

[FTR Amdt. 2003-03, 68 FR 22314, Apr. 28, 2003, as amended at 85 FR 39850, July 2, 2020]
No. 11-9525.

#### Patten *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-1129.

#### Zahn *v.*McHugh, Secretary of the Army.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 301-76.101 Who is responsible for ensuring that all due process and legal requirements have been met?

You are responsible for ensuring that all requirements have been met.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39334-39335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15942]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 110 and 111

[USCG-1999-6096]
RIN 2115-AF89


Marine Shipboard Electrical Cable Standards; Correction

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting and reopening of comment period; 
correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the notice of public meeting and 
reopening of comment period as published on June 5, 2000. In that 
document, the docket number was incorrectly published as USCG-2000-
6096. The correct docket number is USCG-1999-6096.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on the public meeting, 
call Dolores Mercier, Project Manager, Office of Design and Engineering 
Standards (G-MSE), Coast Guard, telephone 202-267-0658, fax 202-267-
4816, e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#096d646c7b6a606c7b496a66646d7d277c7a6a6e27646065"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="12767f7760717b776052717d7f76663c676171753c7f7b7e">[email protected]</span></a>. For questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief, Dockets, 
Department of Transportation, phone 202-366-9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 5, 2000, the Coast Guard published a notice of public 
meeting and reopening of comment period (65 FR 35600). The docket 
number was incorrectly published. Please submit your comments to USCG-
1999-6096, the correct docket number.


[[Page 39335]]


    Dated: June 14, 2000.
Howard L. Hime,
Acting Director of Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-15942 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 10-11150.

#### Tuvalu *v.*Huerta-Garcia, Acting Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. D-2664.

#### In re Discipline of Richardson.

Donald L. Richardson, of Crescent Springs, Ky., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within *96040 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
# Comments on: Availability of Live Audio Access to April 2020 Court Session
#### § 50-204.65 Inspection of compressed gas cylinders.

Each contractor shall determine that compressed gas cylinders under his extent that this can be determined by visual inspection. Visual and other inspections shall be conducted as prescribed in the Hazardous Materials Regulations of the Department of Transportation (49 CFR parts 171-179 and 14 CFR part 103). Where those regulations are not applicable, visual and other inspections shall be conducted in accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlets C-6-198 and C-8-1962.
#### § 60-3.13 Affirmative action.

A. *Affirmative action obligations.* The use of selection procedures which have been validated pursuant to these guidelines does not relieve users of any obligations they may have to undertake affirmative action to assure equal employment opportunity. Nothing in these guidelines is intended to preclude the use of lawful selection procedures which assist in remedying the effects of prior discriminatory practices, or the achievement of affirmative action objectives.

B. *Encouragement of voluntary affirmative action programs.* These guidelines are also intended to encourage the adoption and implementation of voluntary affirmative action programs by users who have no obligation under Federal law to adopt them; but are not intended to impose any new obligations in that regard. The agencies issuing and endorsing these guidelines endorse for all private employers and reaffirm for all governmental employers the Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinating Council's “Policy Statement on Affirmative Action Programs for State and Local Government Agencies” (41 FR 38814, September 13, 1976). That policy statement is attached hereto as appendix, section 17.