alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ORl(lH~AL FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRA TIVE LAW JlJDGES
 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

McWANE, INC., 

a corporation, and 

) 

) 

) DOCKET NO. 9351 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., 

a limited parnership, 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT 

OF WITNESS TELEPHONE RECORDS 

i. 

Pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) of 
 the Commission's Rules of 
 Practice, and the Court's 

directive at trial on September 14, 2012, Complaint Counsel fied a Motion for In Camera 

Treatment of Witness Telephone Records ("Motion") on September 17,2012. As set forth 

below, Complaint Counsel's Motion is GRANTED. 

II. 

In response to subpoenas duces tecum issued by Complaint Counsel, Verizon Legal 

Compliance and Verizon Wireless (collectively, "Verizon") submitted phone records of 

certain employees of Respondent McWane, Inc. ("McWane") and non-pary Sigma 

Corporation ("Sigma"). Complaint Counsel states that it has redacted the phone records it 

received to reflect, according to Complaint Counsel, the call histories between certain 

executives from McWane, Sigma and Star Pipe Products, Ltd. ('¡Star"). Complaint Counsel 

seeks to introduce such phone records into evidence. 

Rule 3.45(b) of the Commission's 
 Rules of 
 Practice sets forth that a party may obtain in camera treatment for material offered into evidence only by motion to the Administrative 

Law Judge and that the Administrative Law Judge shall order that such material be placed in 

camera after finding the material constitutes sensitive personal information. 16C.F.R. 

§ 3.45(b). Under the Commission's Rules, "sensitive 
 personal information" includes, but is not limited to, an individual's Social Security number, taxpayer identification number, 

financial account number, credit card or debit card number, driver's license number, stateissued identification number, passport number, date of 
 birth (other than year), and any 
sensitive health information identifiable by individual, such as an individual's medical 

records. 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b). Pursuant to Rule 3.45(b), subpoenaed telephone records 

identified by the individual constitute "sensitive personal information." 'TS)ensitive personal 

information. . . shall be accorded permanent in camera treatment unless disclosure or an 

expiration date is required or provided by law." 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b). 

III. 

After reviewing Complaint Counsel's Motion for In Camera Treatment for Witness 

Telephone Records, it is ordered that permanent in camera treatment is hereby GRANTED 

for the following documents: CX1618-A, CX1621-A, CX1624-A, CX1625-A, CX1626-A, 

and CX1860-A. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Ch1lpe J)M~

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: September 17, 2012 

2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130100(73)(74) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PHILIP ROBERTSON and Justices 

SHARON ROBERTSON,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 130100 

 COA: 254052 

St. Clair CC: 01-001223-NO 

BLUE WATER OIL COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 27, 

2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. The motion for stay is DENIED as moot. 

WEAVER, J., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant 

leave to appeal and ask the parties to brief the issue whether Mann v Shusteric 

Enterprises Inc, 470 Mich 320 (2004), was correctly decided. 

MARKMAN, J., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant 

defendant’s application for leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in Robertson v Blue 

Water Oil Co, 477 Mich 897 (2006). 

d0122 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

January 29, 2007 

 Clerk
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 02-4161



#  M ARICKA W ANTA C ORPENING , a/k/a Maricha Wanta Corpening, a/k/a Mark, Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.

Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.

(CR-00-47-V) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 30, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL James S. Weidner, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. WEIDNER, JR., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Maricka Wanta Corpening pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and five grams or more of crack in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A) (2000), and was sentenced to a term of 262 months imprisonment. In his plea agreement, Corpening waived his right to appeal his sentenceon any grounds except ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. Corpening now seeks to appeal his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in refusing to depart below the guideline range based on substantial assistance, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 5K1.1, p.s. (2001), despite the government’s failure to move for a substantial assistance departure. Finding thatCorpening knowingly waived his right to appeal his sentence, we dismiss the appeal. It is well established that "a defendant may not appeal his sentence if his plea agreement contains an express and unqualified waiver of the right to appeal, unless that waiver was unknowing or involuntary." United States v. Brown , 232 F.3d 399, 402 (4th Cir. 2000). Corpening does not allege that his waiver was unknowing or involuntary. To theextent that he may intend to raise the issue of prosecutorial misconduct, we find nothing in the record that would support such a claim. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2 U NITED S TATES v. C ORPENING
1 Gift cards offered by retailers (such as stores and restaurants) fall under the

Federal Trade Commission’s jurisdiction, while those offered by depository institutions do not. 

The Office of Comptroller of the Currency has issued a guidance on disclosures and marketing

issues for gift cards issued by national banks. See OCC Bulletin 2006-34 (Aug. 14, 2006). 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

August 14, 2007

Bob DeLuca

Commonwealth of Virginia

Re: In the Matter of Kmart Corporation, Kmart Services Corporation, and

Kmart Promotions, LLC, corporations

FTC File No. 062 3088 

Dear Mr. DeLuca:

Thank you for the comments you submitted regarding the above-referenced matter. Your

comments were placed on the public record pursuant to Section 2.34 of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 2.34, and were given serious consideration by the Commission.

The Commission anticipates that this proposed consent order will send a strong message

that retailers1

 must adequately disclose these material conditions when selling gift cards. Indeed,

over the last few years, the Commission staff has observed that many retailers have already

changed their marketing practices. While many retailers eliminated expiration dates or fees

altogether, staff has found generally that disclosures by retailers still imposing fees have

improved. After considering all of the factors that must be weighed in evaluating any settlement,

including the specific facts, consumer injury, and the need to ensure that the remedies deter

similar behavior by other retailers, the Commission concluded that the strong injunctive

provisions and mandatory refund provision provide a positive result for consumers and an

appropriate resolution of this case.

After considering your comments, the Commission has determined that the public

interest would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without

modification. Respondents will be required to comply with the Order’s injunctive and

reimbursement provisions, and will be subject to potentially large civil penalties if they violate

the Order.
Page 2

Please remember that you may access the Commission’s Consumer Hotline at (202)

326-3569 for updated information about how to receive a refund if your Kmart gift card was

charged dormancy fees. 

Thank you again for your comments. The Commission is aided in its analysis by hearing

from a variety of sources in its work, and it appreciates your interest in this matter.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioners Harbour and Leibowitz concurring in

part and dissenting in part.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
In the matter of: 

BRIAN W ALLAESA 

BRIAN A WALLAESA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FDMS No. FAA-201O-0628 

Case No. 201OWP190018 

Hon. Ronnie A. Yoder 

-----------------------) 

Summary of All Motions, Information 

N 

o 

J> 

Brian Wallaesa (Respondent) herby files an answer to the Administrative Law 

Judge regarding the Notice of Assignment of Proceeding. 

Respondent requests that the Administrative Law Judge considers the following 

documents in this order: 

1. Rebuttal of Motion to Deem Each Allegation Admitted 

;; 2. Motion to Dismiss Complaint Filed July 28,2010 

3. Answer to Complaint Filed July 28,2010 

4. Requested infonnation by Administrative Law Judge in respect to Complaint 

Filed July 28, 2010. 

" 

Dated September 17, 2010 

Respec~fu.ll y.Submitted, .,,::5';;'? 

.. ' ...•...•••••••••••. ,,7-).;2':3;/ .. , .//./ /7 ~~,,~~i~~~~_.. . /~im A. W~llaesa Respondent 

11272 Wortham Crest Circle 

Manassas, VA 20109 

(570) 778-l335 

C' 

~,pS-~l 

n-I>,
#### STATE of Florida, ex rel., David M. DUNCAN, Relator, v. W. Rogers TURNER, as Judge, etc., Respondent.

No. 39877.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 16, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and BOYD, JJ., concur.
268 La. 360

#### Alverta BARRILLEAUX, wife of/and Lawrence J. PREJEANT v. HERO LANDS COMPANY.

No. 51308.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1971.

In re: Hero Lands Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans.

Writs denied; the judgment of the court of appeal is correct.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                          15,523
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105,261
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     72,378
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               213,976
<PP&E>                                         367,457
<DEPRECIATION>                                 130,684
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 520,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          128,708
<BONDS>                                        219,573
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,193
<OTHER-SE>                                     152,051
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   520,569
<SALES>                                        140,979
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,979
<CGS>                                          118,007
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,007
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,589
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,517
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,072
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,072
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
        

</TABLE>
#### AUTO CLUB AFFILIATES, INC. and K & K Insurance Agency, Inc., Petitioners, v. The Honorable David F. PATTERSON, Circuit Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 74-118.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 12, 1974.

Mandamus denied.
File Name: Unweighted Model Code.txt

Author: Robert Johnston, Clark University

Created: November 7, 2011

Purpose: This files presents the LIMDEP code used to estimate the unweighted

model for each survey region.

RESET $

READ ; File ="D:\Rob Johnston\LIMDEP Data\NE_model_data_110411b.xls" ; Format =

XLS ; Names $

CALC ; Ran(12345) $

CREATE ; If(option=0) Neither=1; (Else) Neither=0 $

CREATE ; cost = cost$

REJECT; choice = -999 $

NLOGIT ; Lhs = Choice

; Choices = A,B,Neither

; Rhs = neither, com_fish, fish_pop, fish_sav, aquatic, cost

; RPL

; WTP = com_fish/cost, fish_pop/cost, fish_sav/cost, aquatic/cost

; Fcn = neither(N), com_fish(N), fish_pop(N), fish_sav(N),

aquatic(N)

; Parameters

; Correlation

; Pds = num_r

; Pts = 300

; Maxit = 1000

; Halton

$

Page 1
#### Tommie B. McKEE v. LIBERTY MUTUAL et al.

No. 62180.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 19, 1978.

In re: Tommie B. McKee, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Ouachita.

Denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SETH AARON PRICE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 265 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SETH AARON PRICE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 266 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of March, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


REGION 10 


1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 


Seattle, WA 98101-3140 


OFFICE OF 

AIR, WASTE, AND TOXICS 

May 26,2011 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Meeting and Conference Call with Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality and Stoel Rives, LLP, 5/16/2011, regarding EPA approval of Idaho's Regional 

Haze SIP submittal with regard to meeting requirements of CAA section 

1l0(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). _~~~ ~ 

FROM: Steven K. Body, Sr. Engineering Planner 

THRU: Julie Matthews, ORC Region 10 

TO: The Files 

Meeting Participants: 

Steve Body, EPA Region 10 

Julie Matthews, EPA Region 10 

Martin Bauer, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 

Lisa Carlson, Deputy Attorney General, IDEQ (by phone) 

Christopher Pooser, Stoel Rives (by phone) 

Meeting Subject: 


Mr. Pooser requested, on behalf of T ASCO, that EPA delay final action on the BART provisions 


of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP submittal, as proposed in the Federal Register of January 11, 


2011 (76 FR 1579). This request was based on the negotiations between IDEQ and TASCO on 


an alternative BART determination for T ASCO. T ASCO has found no legal obligation for EPA 


to move forward with final action on the Idaho Regional Haze SIP submittal to meet the June 21, 


2011, deadline in the Consent Decree with WildEarth Guardians Case No. 4:09-CV-02453 (N.D. 


Calif.) 


EPA explained that EPA does feel obligated to take final action on the Idaho SIP submittal to 


meet the Interstate Transport for visibility requirements of CAA section l1O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by 


the WildEarth Guardians consent decree date of June 21, 2011. 


The State did not request anything of EPA during this meeting.
#### Alton Claude FOSS, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-291.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third Disrtict.

July 31, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# r--6--6f

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
DA 23

- 0151
RALPH V . HUTT,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CORPORATION,

Defendant and Appellant. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appe al being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Curtis G.**  **Thompson,** whose name appears next on the list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators f or Money Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run f

rom the date of this order of appointment. A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED this March 27, 2023.

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Jinnifer Jeresek Mariman, jmariman@mcgarveylaw.com ;

ktorbeck@mcgarveylaw.com Clifford Edwards, jenny@edwardslawfirm.org ;

c arol.flanagan@edwardslawfirm.org Allan M. McGarvey, amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com 03/27/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0151Chris Edwards, Chris@edwardslawfirm.org D ustin Alan Richard Leftridge, dleftridge@mcgarveylaw.com Edward J. Longosz, II, elongosz@eckertseamans.com Matthew B. Hayhurst, mhayhurst@boonekarlberg.com Natasha Prinzing Jones, npjones@boonekarlberg.com Thomas J. Leonard, tleonard@boonekarlberg.com Mark A. Johnston, mjohnston@eckertseamans.com Curtis G. Thompson , thomps onlaw2013@gmail.com
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment
No. 1 (this “Amendment”), dated as of March 12, 2014, is made by and between Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and James Nielsen (the “Executive”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties to an employment agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) dated as of April 18, 2011
(the “Effective Date”); and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Employment Agreement as provided below. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual agreements herein contained, the parties hereby agree as follows: 

1. Amendment to Section 2. Section 2 shall hereby be amended to read in its entirety as follows: 

“Term of Employment. The term of this Agreement shall be the time period from the Effective Date and
continue in accordance with the following sentence (the “Term”). On each annual anniversary of the Effective Date, the Term shall be extended for one additional year, unless during the 30-day period prior to any such anniversary,
the Company or the Executive notifies the other in writing not to have the Term so extended. The portion of the Term during which the Executive is actually employed by the Company under this Agreement is referred to as the “Employment
Period”. 
 2. Ratification. All other provisions of the Employment Agreement remain unchanged and are hereby ratified by the Company and
Executive. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the date set forth above. 

 

	
	 Company:

	
	 Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.

	
	 /s/ Doug Sanders

	 By: Doug Sanders, Chief Executive Officer

	
	 Executive:

	
	 /s/ James Nielsen

	 James Nielsen
#### Fred N. DUNN, Petitioner, v. John J. BAESSLER et al., Respondents.

No. 40837.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 29, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 242 So.2d 780.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-11-0000023

25-JUN-2013

08:04 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          29,766
<SECURITIES>                                   214,632
<RECEIVABLES>                                  191,007
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,938,702
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,374,107
<PP&E>                                       2,063,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                 133,050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,448,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,966,113
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,448,911
<SALES>                                      1,773,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,864,656
<CGS>                                        1,502,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,633,439
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               130,779
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,933
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                202,284
<INCOME-TAX>                                    81,730
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   120,554
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1109 Filed 01/13/21 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1109 Filed 01/13/21 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1109 Filed 01/13/21 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1109 Filed 01/13/21 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1109 Filed 01/13/21 Page 5 of 5