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

          - [Public Notice 5789] 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “The Mirror and the Mask: Portraiture in the Age of Picasso,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas, from on or about June 17, 2007, until on or about September 16, 2007, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (                        *telephone:*                         202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.                     

Dated: April 25, 2007. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

 [FR Doc. E7-8475 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 Exhibit 10 g(3)

                             FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE
          HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN


         Effective January 1, 2000, Section 2.04 is amended to read as set forth
below:

         SECTION 2.04 AVERAGE MONTHLY EARNINGS The term "Average Monthly
Earnings" shall mean the Member's highest twelve (12) consecutive months of base
compensation out of the previous sixty (60) months at the time of retirement or
the incidence of Disability, if earlier, divided by 12. Effective for
compensation paid after December 31, 1999, base compensation includes 50% (fifty
percent) of bonuses and incentive or commission compensation paid or deferred
pursuant to incentive plans with one year or less measurement periods.

         Effective January 1, 1999, Section 4.01 is amended to read as set forth
below:

         SECTION 4.01 When a Member retires on or after his Normal Retirement
Date, he shall be entitled to receive a Monthly Retirement Income under this
Plan as calculated by the Administrative Committee. The amount of a Member's
Monthly Retirement Income shall be sixty-five percent (65%) of his Average
Monthly Earnings reduced by the amounts set forth in Sections 4.01(a), 4.01(b)
and 4.01(c).

         Sections 4.01(a) through 4.01(c) are unchanged.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jesse A. Leon GUERRERO, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-10558.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 22, 2005.

Marivic P. David, Hagatna, GU, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Louie J. Yanza, Esq., Vernier & Maher, LLP, Hagatna, GU, for Defendanb-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jesse A. Leon Guerrero appeals the district court’s judgment imposing an 18-months sentence following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*901Appellant contends that the district court failed to adequately set forth its reasons for departing from the recommended guideline range upon the revocation of his supervised release. However, upon review, we conclude that the district court’s reasons are sufficiently specific for this Court to conduct a meaningful review, and the district court did not err. *See United States v. Montenegro-Rojo,*908 F.2d 425, 427-28 (9th Cir.1990). To the extent appellant is challenging the district court’s reasoning for the departure, we conclude that there was a basis for district court’s decision, and the district court did not abuse its discretion. *See United States v. Musa,*220 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 23, 2016

a1116 

# Order

Clerk November 23, 2016

153691

KELLI SHINN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153691

COA: 324227

Wayne CC: 13

- 008123

- NF

STATE OF MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF

STATE ASSIGNED CLAIMS FACILITY,

Defendant,

and

AMERICAN COUNTRY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee,

and

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 29, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-4063

___________ Anitaan Kashimawo-Spikes, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. U.S. Bancorp, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 17, 2006 Filed: March 20, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Anitaan Kashimawo-Spikes (Spikes ) appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination action against U.S. Bankcorp (U.S. Bank) brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Having caref ully reviewed the record, see Kincaid v. City of Omaha , 378 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th Cir. 2004) (de novo standard of review), we agree with the district court that Spikes could not make out a prima facie case for failure to promote, because she did not rebut U.S. Ba nk’s evidence that she already held the-2- position for which she applied. See Shannon v. Ford Motor Co. , 72 F.3d 678, 682 (8th Cir. 1996) (element s under Title VII); seealso Davis v. KARK-TV, Inc. , 421 F.3d 699, 703-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (Title V II and § 1981 cases an alyzed in same manner). We also agree that Spikes failed to demonstrat e a prima facie case of race discrimination, because the isolated and objectively benign comments and events she identified do not permit an inference that he r termination was base d on her race. See Wheeler v. Aventis Pharms. , 360 F.3d 853, 857 (8th Cir. 2004) (elements); seealso Faragher v. City of Boca Raton , 524 U.S. 775, 787 (1998) (comments must be objectively hostile to reasonable person).
We further agree with the district c ourt that Spikes failed to present a trialworthy issue on her disability-discrimination claim, because she could not establish that she was disabled w ithin the meaning of the ADA. See Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co. , 327 F.3d 707, 711 (8th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff must show disability to make prima facie case). Fina lly, we need not consider the claim Spikes raises under the Family and Medical Leav e Act, or her hostile-work-environment argument, because she expressly ab andoned those claims below. SeeUnited States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732-33 (1993) (claim relinquished below need not be addressed on appeal).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgmen t of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Exhibit 11

VARLEN CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
Computation of Per Share Earnings Unaudited
(Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         Three Months Ended
                                          5/3/97    5/4/96
Primary Earnings Per Share:
<S>                                      <C>       <C>
Net earnings                             $ 5,009   $ 4,822

Computation of the Weighted Average
Number of Shares Outstanding as Used
in the Primary Earnings Per Share
Computation:

Weighted average number of shares 
outstanding                                5,777     5,853

Shares assumed issued under the
treasury stock method                        182       242

Weighted average number of shares
outstanding, as adjusted                   5,959     6,095


Primary Earnings Per Share:               $ 0.84    $ 0.79


Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share:

Reconciliation of net earnings per 
the condensed consolidated financial
statements to the amount used for the 
fully diluted computation:

Net earnings                             $ 5,009   $ 4,822

Add interest on 6.5% convertible
subordinated debentures, net of
income tax effects                           690       703

Net earnings, as adjusted                $ 5,699   $ 5,525

Computation of the Weighted Average
Number of Shares Outstanding as Used
in the Fully Diluted Earnings Per
Share Computation:

Weighted average number of shares
outstanding                                5,777     5,853

Shares assumed issued under the
treasury stock method                        217       252

Shares issuable from assumed exercise
of 6.5% convertible subordinated
debentures                                 3,054     3,054

Weighted average number of shares
outstanding, as adjusted                   9,048     9,159

Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share:         $ 0.63   $  0.60

</TABLE>
No. 46929.

#### Protest 64299-K of W. *X.*Huber Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the wooden forks in question are similar to those the subject of *Borgfeldt*v. *United States*(T. D. 48585). The claim at 33)4 percent under paragraph 412 was therefore sustained.
No. 42013.

Suit 4202.

#### Protests 849122-G, etc., of Globe Muslin *Underwear*Co.

Abstract 38931. Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Union
Carbide Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1999, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000100790
<NAME> UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              36
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1112
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        608
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2013
<PP&E>                                            8872
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4444
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    7660
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1624
<BONDS>                                           1868
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                        2367
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      7660
<SALES>                                           4318
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4318
<CGS>                                             3369
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3369
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   416<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  98
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    349
<INCOME-TAX>                                        90
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                217
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                           20
<NET-INCOME>                                       197
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.45
<FN>
<F1>Other expenses are equal to research and development of 114 and depreciation
and amortization of 302.
</FN>


</TABLE>
From: Krzyzanowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Krzyzanowski@oldcastle.com]

Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:18 AM

To: Raymond, Gabrielle

Subject: RE: Glen-Gery green brick testing results

Gabrielle,

We would like to keep the actual coordinates of the quarry locations confidential. 

Thanks,

Mike

Mike Krzyzanowski | Technical Services Manager

GLEN-GERY CORPORATION

433 S. Pottsville Pike

Shoemakersville PA 19555

Office: (610) 562-3076

Cell: (610) 207-6882

From: Raymond, Gabrielle [mailto:graymond@rti.org]

Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 8:54 AM

To: Krzyzanowski, Mike

Subject: RE: Glen-Gery green brick testing results

Thank your for your response. I just want to confirm with you that the file does not contain any 

confidential business information?

Thanks,

Gabrielle

Gabrielle Raymond

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Road

P.O. Box 12194

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Phone: (919) 541-7015
From: Krzyzanowski, Mike [mailto:Mike.Krzyzanowski@oldcastle.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 4:01 PM

To: Raymond, Gabrielle

Subject: RE: Glen-Gery green brick testing results

Gabrielle,

Attached is the worksheet for the Glen-Gery Corporation you requested. Please note that our 

plants generally use different proprietary combinations of clays, shale, and clay/shale blends 

depending on the products being made. Our mined raw materials do not always come from a 

single source location.

Thanks,

Mike

Mike Krzyzanowski | Technical Services Manager

GLEN-GERY CORPORATION

433 S. Pottsville Pike

Shoemakersville PA 19555

Office: (610) 562-3076

Cell: (610) 207-6882

<<Glen Gery Green Brick Testing Results- 032515BIA- to EPA May 4 2015_GlenGery Rev 

052715.xlsx>>

From: Raymond, Gabrielle <graymond@rti.org>

Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:44 AM

To: 'mike.krzyzanowski@oldcastleapg.com' <mike.krzyzanowski@oldcastleapg.com>

Subject: Glen-Gery green brick testing results

Hello Mr. Krzyzanowski,

I work with RTI International, the contractor working with the U.S. EPA in developing air 

regulations for the Brick industry, I got your name and contact information from Susan Miller of 

the BIA. The BIA has provided EPA with a spreadsheet of mercury green brick testing results 

with the intent to add a mercury raw material variability factor to the Mercury MACT floor limit. In 

order to incorporate this raw material data, EPA needs to know a little bit more about the 

general location of the clay deposits being used by the facilities.

I’m attaching a spreadsheet of the Glen-Gery facilities that provided green brick testing results 

to EPA via BIA. I’ve added some columns at the end to be filled out with the Name of Clay 

Deposit, Geological Age of the Deposit, and Latitude/Longitude of the Clay Deposit. Any 

information you are able to provide about the clay deposits will be much appreciated and 

helpful!
Thank you for your help,

Gabrielle 

Gabrielle Raymond

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Road

P.O. Box 12194

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Phone: (919) 541-7015

<<Green Brick Testing Results- 032515BIA- to EPA May 4 2015_GlenGery.xlsx>>
May 25, 1949

No. 53210.

Suit 4603.

#### Griffon Importing Co. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1106 reversed March 22, 1949. C. A. D. 408.
Request for Public Comments on Exceptional Events in the Greater Phoenix Area

In 2005, Congress identified a need to account for events that result in exceedances of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that are exceptional in nature (e.g., not 

expected to reoccur or caused by acts of nature beyond man-made controls.) In response, EPA 

promulgated the Exceptional Events Rule (EER) to address exceptional events in 40 CFR Parts 

50 and 51 on March 22, 2007 (72 FR 13560). On May 2, 2011, EPA released draft guidance 

documents on the implementation of the EER to State, tribal and local air agencies for review. 

The EER allows for states and tribes to “flag” air quality monitoring data as an exceptional 

event. If flagged, these data can be excluded from consideration in air quality planning if EPA 

concurs with the demonstration submitted by the flagging agency documenting that all 

procedural and technical requirements have been met. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(i), the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is 

soliciting comments on its final demonstrations of events that have caused elevated 

concentrations of PM10 in the Greater Phoenix area on February 19; July 18; August 3; August 

18; August 25 through 28; September 2; October 4; November 4, 2011; January 21 – 22 and 

February 27, 2012. ADEQ has decided to flag these episodes based on these analyses. Copies of 

the demonstrations are available for review beginning Monday, December 3, 2012, on the ADEQ 

website at www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/plan/. Interested parties can submit written comments 

throughout the comment period which will end at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 1, 2013. Any 

comments received will be responded to and forwarded to EPA with the final demonstrations. 

Written comments should be addressed, faxed, or e-mailed to: 

Andra Juniel, Air Assessment Section, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1110 W. 

Washington Street, 3415-A, Phoenix, AZ 85007, PHONE: (602) 771-4417; FAX: (602) 771-

2366, E-mail: juniel.andra@azdeq.gov. 

In addition to being available on-line, copies of the analyses are available for review, Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., at the ADEQ Records Center, 1110 W. Washington St., 

Phoenix, AZ, 85007, Attn: David Olivo, (602) 771-4380, email: olivo.david@azdeq.gov. 

Persons with a disability may request reasonable accommodations by contacting Linda Morrison 

at (602) 771-4793 or 1-800-234-5677 ext. 771-4793. This document is available in alternative 

formats by contacting ADEQ TDD phone number at (602) 771-4829.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                          433850
<SECURITIES>                                    858009
<RECEIVABLES>                                   262419
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     500000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2271449
<PP&E>                                        10589391
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4046937
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                14455444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5589429
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      29979
<COMMON>                                         53138
<OTHER-SE>                                     5643288
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  14455444
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4528531
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2444476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                916612
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              737297
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 833088
<INCOME-TAX>                                    200000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             633088
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    633088
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        

</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM Subject: Summary of St akeholder Meetings From: Martha Keating To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699 Date: March 31, 2015 On February 21, 2015, Megan Brach tl of the Ai r Quality PolicyDivision, State and Local Pr o g r ams Group, presented an overview, by tele conference, of the Agency’s November 25, 2 0 1 5 , pr oposed revisions to the National Ambien t Air Quality Standards for Ozone to the National Association of Counties (NAC O). The presentation used in the teleconference is available here: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevel ozone/pdfs/2014decwebinar.pdf The sign-in list of attendees follows.
# C_2015127EN.01004201.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/42

---

Action brought on 6 February 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-22/15)

(2015/C 127/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision fixing the rights of the applicant to reimbursement of annual travel expenses under Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the CEOS.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare illegal and inapplicable Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare illegal and inapplicable Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations;

| — | Annul the decision to cancel all reimbursement of the applicant’s annual travel expenses from 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision to cancel all reimbursement of the applicant’s annual travel expenses from 2014;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

---