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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7411 

To prohibit the procurement by the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency 

of certain items containing a perfluoroalkyl substance or polyfluoroalkyl 

substance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 29, 2020 

Ms. SLOTKIN (for herself and Mr. TURNER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the procurement by the Director of the Defense 

Logistics Agency of certain items containing a perfluoroalkyl substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘PFAS Free Military 

5 Purchasing Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7411 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON PROCUREMENT BY DEFENSE LO2 GISTICS AGENCY OF CERTAIN ITEMS CON3 TAINING PERFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES 

4 AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—The Director of the Defense Lo6 gistics Agency may not procure any covered item con7 taining a perfluoroalkyl substance or polyfluoroalkyl sub8 stance. 

9 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

10 (1) The term ‘‘covered item’’ means— 

11 (A) non-stick cookware or food service 

12 ware for use in galleys or dining facilities; 

13 (B) food packaging materials; 

14 (C) furniture or floor waxes; 

15 (D) carpeting, rugs, or upholstered fur16 niture; 

17 (E) personal care items; 

18 (F) dental floss; and 

19 (G) sunscreen. 

20 (2) The term ‘‘perfluoroalkyl substance’’ means 

21 a man-made chemical of which all of the carbon 

22 atoms are fully fluorinated carbon atoms. 

23 (3) The term ‘‘polyfluoroalkyl substance’’ 

24 means a man-made chemical containing a mix of 

25 fully fluorinated carbon atoms, partially fluorinated 

26 carbon atoms, and nonfluorinated carbon atoms. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7411 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect 

2 on the date that is one year after the date of the enact3 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
No. 10061.

#### Moser *v.*Chambers, Sheriff.

Decided February 25, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*Mr. A. F. Hanson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. J. S. Martin,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
Description of MIP






DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN
FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
______________________________________________________________________________________________________


The goal of the Management Incentive Plan (“MIP”) is to drive performance by the Company’s management.  The MIP provides an opportunity to earn a bonus (expressed as a percentage of base salary) based on performance of up to 200% of base salary. Individual awards under the MIP shall be made in the discretion of the Board of Directors. 
Financial Metrics
The Board will establish threshold, target and maximum goals (with a payout percentage assigned to each with maximum payout not to exceed 200%) for the following financial metrics on an annual basis, weighted as follows, in each case unless otherwise determined by the Board.  
	
		
	Performance Metrics
	Weight

	Adjusted Gross Profit (Gross Profit plus depreciation expense included in COGS)
	30%

	Adjusted EBITDA (EBITDA as adjusted for management fees, non-recurring or unusual items and such other items as determined by the Board of Directors considers appropriate)
	50%

	Ending Liquidity (excess revolver availability plus cash and cash equivalents)
	20%




 
In calculating the payout under an award, the overall payout percentage (expressed as a percent of base salary) shall equal the sum of the payout percentages for each financial metric weighted as set forth above.
Non-Financial Goals
In addition to the financial metrics defined below, the Board of Directors will consider in its determination the Company’s performance on several non-financial goals including goals relating to the following:  (i) the Company’s OSHA incident rate; (ii) whether there are any significant DOT or fleet issues, (iii) whether the Company’s On-Time In-Full customer service measurement meets established goals and (iv) any associate’s individual leadership and performance rating.
The Board of Directors reserves the right to make adjustments to final MIP payments based on other factors it deems in the Company’s best interests. The Board of Directors reserves the right to make adjustments to financial goals to account for items not contemplated at the time the goals were established.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
financial  statements for the three month period ended February 28, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000027850
<NAME>                        MARITIME TRANSPORT & TECHNOLOGY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     $
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              May-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Dec-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Feb-28-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00
        



</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00199-CR

JOHN HANKINS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 4 OF DENTON COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

PERMANENTLY ABATING APPEAL

----------

We received a letter dated April 5, 2012 from the State and a letter dated 

April 5, 2012 from Appellant’s counsel, both stating that Appellant John Hankins 

had died on March 28, 2012. The State’s letter included a copy of Hankins’s

obituary, showing that he had died on Wednesday, March 28, 2012. According 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
2

to the parties’ letters, they agree that this appeal should be permanently abated. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 7.1(a)(2).

The death of an appellant during the pendency of an appeal deprives this 

court of jurisdiction. Molitor v. State, 862 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1993). Under these circumstances, the appropriate disposition is the permanent 

abatement of the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.1(a)(2).

Accordingly, because no decision of this court had been delivered prior to 

our receipt of the parties’ letters and because the parties are in agreement that 

this appeal should be permanently abated, the court on its own motion 

permanently abates the appeal. It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed 

that this appeal is permanently abated.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, GARDNER, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 19, 2012
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10832

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BARRY K BARNETT

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CR-62-ALL

Before KING, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Barry K. Barnett raises

arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Hinson, 429F.3d 114, 119 (5th

Cir. 2005), which held that a defendantis not entitled to a jury trialto determine

whether the terms of supervised release have been violated. The Government’s

motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 5, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10832

2
#### Edith B. CRAIG, Appellant, v. Milbourn B. CRAIG, Sr., Appellee.

No. 72-624.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 17, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Joseph P. Metzger, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

November 10, 2014

Daniel Ballard

State of California

Re: In the Matter of Made in the USA Brand, LLC

File No. 142 3121, Docket No. C-4497

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed consent 

agreement in the above-referenced proceeding. The Commission has considered your comment 

and placed it on the public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 4.9(b)(6)(ii).

In your comment, you state that the Commission should reject the consent agreement 

because it does not take into account the fact that Respondent’s mark is a certification mark 

registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), and does not analyze 

whether Respondent’s mark is eligible for cancelation. You do not propose any revisions to the 

draft complaint or the consent agreement.

The draft complaint and consent agreement take no position regarding whether 

Respondent has failed to control its certification mark or whether the mark is ripe for 

cancelation. Rather, the purpose of the agreement is to prevent consumer deception arising from 

Respondent’s use of its mark. By prohibiting Respondent from misrepresenting the extent to 

which it has independently and objectively evaluated the products it certifies and requiring 

respondent to have competent and reliable evidence to substantiate its claims, the agreement 

achieves those goals. Nothing in the agreement would prevent challenges to respondent’s mark 

before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Therefore, after considering your comment, the Commission has determined that the 

relief set forth in the consent agreement is appropriate and sufficient to remedy the violations 

alleged in the complaint. At this time, the Commission has determined that the public interest 

would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without modification. The 

final Decision and Order and other relevant materials are available on the Commission’s website 

at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its 

work, and we thank you again for your comment.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1493

BEL AIR AUTO AUCTION, INC.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant – Appellee.

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

AMERICAN PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION; 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES,

Amici Supporting Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-02892-RDB)

Submitted: June 9, 2022 Decided: June 14, 2022

Before WYNN, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Lawrence J. Gebhardt, Gregory L. Arbogast, Robert T. Nanovsky, 

GEBHARDT & SMITH LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Gabriela Richeimer, 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1493 Doc: 65 Filed: 06/14/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

M. Addison Draper, CLYDE & CO US LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jonathan D. Hacker, 

Bradley N. Garcia, Jenya Godina, O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellee. Wystan M. Ackerman, ROBINSON & COLE LLP, Hartford, Connecticut; 

George E. Reede, Jr., ZELLE LLP, Washington, D.C.; Laura A. Foggan, CROWELL & 

MORING LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici American Property Casualty Insurance 

Association and National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1493 Doc: 65 Filed: 06/14/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Bel Air Auto Auction, Inc. (“Bel Air”) appeals the district court’s order denying Bel 

Air’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 motion for summary judgment and granting Great Northern 

Insurance Company’s (“Great Northern”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the 

pleadings in Bel Air’s declaratory judgment action. Bel Air’s claims stem from Great 

Northern’s denial of insurance benefits Bel Air asserts Great Northern owed it to cover 

business loss Bel Air incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See

Bel Air Auto Auction, Inc. v. Great N. Ins. Co., No. 1:20-cv-02892-RDB (D. Md. April 14, 

2021); see also Uncork & Create LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 27 F.4th 926, 933-34 (4th 

Cir. 2022) (holding that insurance “policy’s coverage for business income loss and other 

expenses d[id] not apply to [plaintiff’s] claim for financial losses [caused by the COVID19 pandemic] in the absence of any material destruction or material harm to its covered 

premises” and further “observ[ing] that our holding is consistent with the unanimous 

decisions by our sister circuits, which have applied various states’ laws to similar insurance 

claims and policy provisions”). We deny Bel Air’s motions to defer and for 

reconsideration. 

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

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1493 Doc: 65 Filed: 06/14/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4454]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[CA-060-07-1990-00]


Meeting of the California Desert District Advisory Council

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, in accordance with Public Laws 92-463 
and 94-579, that the California Desert District Advisory Council to the 
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, will meet 
in formal session on Thursday, March 20 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and 
Friday, March 21, 1996, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The Thursday 
session will be held in the Needles City hall Council Chambers located 
at 111 Baily Avenue, Needles, California.
    Council members will participate in a field tour on Friday. The 
tour will assemble at the Travelers Inn parking lot at 7:15 a.m., and 
depart at 7:30 a.m. The hotel is located at 1195 3rd Street. The public 
is welcome to participate in the field tour, but should dress 
appropriately and plan on providing their own transportation, food, and 
beverage. Anyone interested in participating in the field tour should 
contact BLM at (909) 697-5215 for more information.
    The Thursday meeting will begin at 8 a.m. All Desert District 
Advisory Council meetings are open to the public. Time for public 
comment may be made available by the Council Chairman during the 
presentation of various agenda items, and is scheduled at the end of 
the meeting for topics not on the agenda.
    Written comments may be filed in advance of the meeting for the 
California Desert District Advisory Council, c/o Bureau of Land 
Management, Public Affairs Office, 6221 Box Springs Boulevard, 
Riverside, California 92507-0714. Written comments also are accepted at 
the time of the meeting and, if copies are provided to the recorder, 
will be incorporated into the minutes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND MEETING CONFIRMATION: Contact the Bureau of 
Land Management, California Desert District, Public Affairs Office, 
6221 Box Springs Boulevard, Riverside, California 92507-0714; (909) 
697-5215.

    Dated: February 14, 1997.
Jo Simpson,
Assistant District Manager, External Affairs.
[FR Doc. 97-4454 Filed 2-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-M
#### WIDELL ASSOCIATES, INC., etc. and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, etc., Petitioners, v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, Florida, etc., Respondent.

No. 42956.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 20, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 266 So.2d 176.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN and BOYD, JJ., dissent.
#### Francis H. HILLIARD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elden Ray SHUFF, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4322.

Court of Appeal of Ijouisiana, Third Circuit.

Nov. 5, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 3, 1973.

Writ Refused Jan. 25, 1974.

Edwards, Stefanski & Barousse, by Homer E. Barousse, Jr., Crowley, for defendant-appellant.

Pugh, Buatt, Landry & Pugh by Lawrence G. Pugh, Jr., Crowley, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, SAVOY and DOMEN-GEAUX, JJ.

SAVOY, Judge.

The instant suit originated as an action by plaintiff praying that defendant be enjoined from operating fuel storage tanks near the property of plaintiff, which adjoins that which defendant occupies as lessee. The trial court rejected plaintiff’s demand and dismissed his suit. We affirmed. Hilliard v. Shuff, 241 So.2d 56 (1970). Plaintiff applied for, and the Supreme Court granted, a writ of certiorari. After a hearing, the Supreme Court reversed our judgment and held that plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief, but since the record did not contain sufficient evidence for them to determine whether corrective action short of removal was fea*267sible, it remanded the case to the district court for reception of additional evidence to determine the terms and conditions of the injunction. Hilliard v. Shuff, 260 La. 384, 256 So.2d 127.

Plaintiff died after judgment. His widow and children were substituted as party plaintiffs.

In a written opinion rendered in the instant case, this court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal, 280 So.2d 845.

After a second trial, the district judge held that the only corrective measure was to remove the tanks away from the property of plaintiff 150 feet and there to vent them. Accordingly, as directed by the Supreme Court, he granted a permanent injunction prohibiting defendant, his employees, heirs and agents from locating or placing above ground, fuel storage tanks within 150 feet of the plaintiff’s property. Defendant appealed.

Dr. Ronald L. Lewis, an expert for plaintiff, testified that the tanks could not be buried underground, that the venting of the tanks would not abate the nuisance, and that the removal of the tanks was the only corrective measure which could be taken.

Dr. William Bernard, an expert for defendant, testified that replacing the old vents with a new type of vent would correct the danger from vapor and that it would not be necessary to remove the tanks from their present location.

The court gave greater weight to the testimony of the plaintiff expert. Considering the evidence as a whole, we cannot say that he committed error.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed at appellant’s costs.

Affirmed.
#### Judith Ann PITTS, Appellant, v. LEPCO, INC., a corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-821.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 16, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Neis R. Pearson, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
_____________

No. 95-3447MN

_____________

Randall H. Smith, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Minnesota.

Shirley S. Chater, *

Commissioner of Social Security * [UNPUBLISHED]

Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

_____________

Submitted: July 18, 1996

 Filed: July 30, 1996

_____________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Randall H. Smith appeals the district court's grant of summary

judgment affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny Smith disability

insurance benefits. After careful review of the parties' briefs and the

administrative record, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district

court's opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

.~/:;,~,eR"~G' ~tAL t.'

/(c d?11 ?31 ,j ',~ a J,':,iJ 3 Ü ¡uD8 ¡ \" CUf)/1iL/

'" ~-"~~~')Cff\"\!. ~.~~.~

In the Matter of

)

)

)

)

)

)

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Docket No. 9327

Respondent.

ORDER REQUIRING STA TUS- REPORT

On Januar 13, 2009, Respondent submitted a Motion to Compel Exide Technologies

("Exide") to Produce Documents Requested by Subpoena Duces Tecum and a Motion to Compel

Entek International, LLC ("Entek") to Produce Documents Requested by Subpoena Duces

Tecum. In each of these motions, Respondent asserts that the non-paries have failed to produce

responsive documents.

Non-pary Exide submitted an opposition on Januar 22,2009. Exide states that it has

been working dilgently to comply with the subpoena and wil continue to do so, but that, due to

the breadth of the documents sought, it has been unable to complete production.

Non-pary Entek submitted an opposition on Januar 22,2009. Entek states that it has

substantially complied with the subpoena, as modified by an agreement between Entek and

Respondent, and that it intends to produce additional documents as promptly as it can.

Respondent's counsel is hereby ORDERED to provide a report on the status of

production and whether its motions have been rendered moot.

ORDERED: ~ cl,1/

D. Michael Chappell

Administrative Law Judge

Date: Januar 30,2009