alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**To :**  **Cc: Bcc:**  **Subject: Fw: PM Air Quality Data Request Follow-Up (Rich, K. E., J. Petkau, S. Vedal, M. Brauer** 

**(2004) Inhal Toxicol 16: 363-72**

**From: Michael Brauer <brauer@interchange.ubc.ca>**  **To: Rebecca Yang/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA**  **Cc: Lindsay Stanek/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Sverre Vedal <svedal@u.washington.edu>,** 

**john @stat.ubc.ca**  **Date: 12/08/2009 08:02 PM**  **Subject: Re: PM Air Quality Data Request Follow-Up** 



### PM2.5 PM10 Mean 8.2 13.3 SD 10.7 4.9 N 265.0 322.0 Max 140.3 27.7 99 29.7 26.1 98 21.3 24.9 97 20.0 23.7 96 19.1 23.2 95 16.3 22.7**Dear Dr. Brauer,**

**My name is Rebecca Yang and I am writing to you on behalf of Dr. Lindsay Stanek and Ms. Beth Hassett-Sipple of the EPA. On October 20, 2009, an email was sent you requesting descriptive statistics**  **on the air quality distribution data for PM2.5 and/or PM10-2.5 for your study listed below.**

**Because the PM Integrated Science Assessment will be finalized in mid -December, we are hoping to receive all the necessary data by Monday, December 7th. In order to clarify our request or answer any**  **questions you may have, I would like to speak with you on Friday, December 4th. The statistics of most interest for the 24-hour concentrations of PM2.5 and/or PM10-2.5 are the following:**  **- 95th percentile - 96th percentile**  **- 97th percentile - 98th percentile**  **- 99th percentile - maximum concentration value** 

**If your study contains thoracic coarse PM data, then the PM10 data for the same statistics as above are**  **also requested. If the above data is unavailable, the statistic of most interest is the 98th percentile for the PM2.5 size fraction.** 

**In respect for your time, if there is another researcher/co-author who may be able to handle this air quality data request (i.e., has easier access to the data), I would greatly appreciate his/her name and contact**  **information.**

**Thank you so much for your help! I apologize for the inconvenience but the data you provide is critical for inclusion in the EPA's Integrated Science Assessment and Policy Assessment Document for Particulate**  **Matter. Unless I hear from you otherwise, I look forward to speaking with you on Friday, December 4th. Thank you for your time!** 

**Sincerely,**

**Rebecca Yang Student Services Contractor**  **U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Assessment-RTP**  **PH: (919) 541-2655**Rich, K. E., J. Petkau, S. Vedal, M. Brauer (2004) . "A case-crossover analysis of particulate air pol lution and

cardiac arrhythmia in patients with implantable car dioverter defibrillators." Inhal Toxicol 16 (6-7): 363-72.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,026,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      65,046,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (12,296,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              59,332,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     24,546,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    19,314,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,192,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                59,332,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,712,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,553,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,159,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,159,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.38
         

</TABLE>
Order Granting Motion for Extension - 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Case No. DA 20-0423___________

STATE OF MONTANA

Plaintiff and Appellee,

 vs.

RICHARD EDWARD ADSIT, JR.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Montana Tenth Judicial District Court,

Cascade County, Cause No. DC-23-2018-07

__________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of the Appellant’s Motion for Extension and good cause 

appearing: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellant’s Opening Brief shall be filed 

with the court on or before March 5, 2021. 

DATED this ____ day of ________________, 2021.

_________________________________

Montana Supreme Court 

01/29/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0423
Order Granting Motion for Extension - 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

cc: Meghan Lulf Sutton, Attorney for Appellant

Montana Attorney General Office, Tammy Plubell 

Heather Perry, Judith Basin County Attorney 

Tenth Judicial District Court, Judith Basin County

Hon. Jon A. Oldenburg

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 29 2021
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 76 

To amend Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to protect the 

‘‘gig economy’’ and small businesses that operate in large part through 

contractor services from the threat of costly class action litigation, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

to protect the ‘‘gig economy’’ and small businesses that 

operate in large part through contractor services from 

the threat of costly class action litigation, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Protect the Gig Econ5 omy Act of 2019’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 76 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROTECTING THE GIG ECONOMY FROM CLASS AC2 TIONS. 

3 Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

6 end; 

7 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at 

8 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

9 (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(5) the claim does not allege the misclassifica12 tion of employees as independent contractors.’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1181

In Re: JOSEPH J. CAMPBELL, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:04-cr-01046-DCN-7) 

Submitted: May 13, 2009 Decided: June 9, 2009 

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Joseph J. Campbell, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Joseph J. Campbell petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order dismissing the indictment in his underlying 

criminal conviction. We conclude that Campbell is not entitled 

to mandamus relief. 

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner 

has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & 

Loan Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, 

mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in 

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th 

Cir. 1987). 

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. 

In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 

The relief sought by Campbell is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392]
 ACTION: Notice of registration.
 SUMMARY: Registrants listed below have applied for and been granted registration by-the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as importers of various classes of schedule I or II controlled substances.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The companies listed below applied to be registered as importers of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on previously published notices is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted and no requests for hearing were submitted for these notices. Company
FR docket
PublishedPerkinElmer, Inc
83 FR 9337
March 5, 2018.Stepan Company
83 FR 9337
March 5, 2018.Noramco, Inc
83 FR 12408
March 21, 2018.Sanyal Biotechnology
83 FR 12407
March 21, 2018.S&B Pharma, Inc
83 FR 13523
March 29, 2018.Siegfried USA, LLC
83 FR 13521
March 29, 2018.Lannett Company, Inc
83 FR 13520
March 29, 2018.
 The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of the listed registrants to import the applicable basic classes of schedule I or II controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated each company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing each company's physical security systems, verifying each company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing each company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the DEA has granted a registration as an importer for schedule I or II controlled substances to the above listed companies. Dated: May 30, 2018. John J. Martin, Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2018-12670 Filed 6-12-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Exhibit 10.19

 

	

    	
March 1,   2012
    


 

Florida East Coast Railway, LLC

Summary of Employment Terms

 

	
Employee:
    	
 
    	
Andrew   Westhoff
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
 
    	
Vice   President, Marketing and Sales
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Base   Salary:
    	
 
    	
$190,000.00   per annum
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Signing   bonus:
    	
 
    	
$20,000,   subject to usual and customary federal and railroad retirement taxes
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Annual   Discretionary Bonus
    	
 
    	
Commencing   for the 2012 fiscal year (Paid in the first quarter of 2013), a target bonus   of 35% of base salary, subject to the discretion of management of the   Company. Any bonus will be paid in cash or partially in cash and partially in   restricted stock. Any receipt of restricted stock will be subject to award   agreements provided by the Company and signed by the Employee.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Additional   Performance-Based Restricted Stock:
    	
 
    	
Additional   restricted stock with a value equivalent to $100,000 (as of the grant date)   annually, contingent upon the Company reaching specific target goals.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Annual   Stock Bonus Vesting:
    	
 
    	
Any   receipt of restricted stock will be subject to award agreements provide by   the Company and signed by the Employee. To the extent annual discretionary   bonuses are paid partially in stock, shares awarded shall vest over three   years (one-third per annum on each successive anniversary of the date on   which the stock portion of bonus is awarded).
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
4   weeks of vacation TRB/afw 3/1/12
    


 

Summary of Employment Terms Acknowledgement

 

This will acknowledge that I have been provided the Summary of Employment Terms and that I understand and agree to the terms and conditions expressed herein.  I further understand that this Summary of Employment Terms and my acknowledgement does not guarantee continued employment and that employment with the Florida East Coast Railway, LLC, is on an at-will basis.  Further, I acknowledge that nothing herein confers any severance or similar rights.

 

	
/s/ Andrew J Westhoff
    	
 
    	
3/1/2012
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Employee Signature
    	
 
    	
Date
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

 

Receipt of the attached term sheet does not constitute any guarantee of continued employment.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). JT K / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T REN E D O M I N G U EZ- CI EN FU EG O S; SAM I A ELI ZABE TH DO M I NG UEZRAM I RE Z, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 73170 A ge nc yN os . A 095- 306- 322

A 095- 306- 323 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary16, 2010 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R ene D om i ng uez- C i enfuegos and S am i a E l i zabeth D om i ng uez- R am i re z, hus ba nd a nd w i f

e a nd na t i ve s a nd c i t i z e ns of M e xi c o, pe t i t i on pr o s e f orr e vi e w of 

# FI LED FEB 26 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSJ T K / Res ea r ch 07- 73170 2 th e B o a r do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g th e irm o tio n to r e o p e n . O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e d e n yin p art an dd is m is s in p a rtth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. P e t i t i one r s do notr a i s e a nya r gum e nt s c onc e rni ng the B I A ’ s di s pos i t i ve det erm i nat i on thatpet i t i on er s w er e notpri m a f ac i e e l i gi bl e f

or re l i ef because they f a ile dto d e p a rt w ith in th e v o lu n taryd e p artu r e p e r io d . See 8 U . S . C . § 1229c ( d) (f ai l ure t o d epartvo l un t ar i l y w i thi n the t i m e per i od spec i fi ed re sul t s i n a t en-y ear b a rto c e rta in f

o rm s o f r e lie f , in c lu d in g c an c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l) ; D e M

art i nez v . A s h c r o ft , 37 4 F . 3d 75 9, 76 2-64 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). P et i t i on er s there fore have w ai ved a n yc h a lle n g e to th e B I A ’s d e c is io n . Se e M a r t i n ez - Se rra n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 1256, 1259 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( i s s ue s nots pe c i f i c a l l yr a i s e d and ar gue d i n apa rty ’ s ope ni ng b r ie f a r e w a iv e d ) . T o the ext entpet i t i on er s c hal l enge the B IA ’ s F ebruary5, 20 07 , order di s m i s s i ng the i runde r l y i ng appe a l , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on be c aus e thi s pe t i t i on f or r e v ie w is n o t tim e lya s to th a t o r d e r . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ; S i n gh v . I NS , 315 F . 3d 11 86 , 11 88 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
No. 00-927.

#### Chao, Secretary of Labor *v.*Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.
##### 



Exhibit 3.2
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO
RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
CELL GENESYS, INC.
   1.
    
    They are, respectively, (a) the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, and
(b) the Secretary of Cell Genesys, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the General Corporation Law);2.
    
    The first paragraph of Article 4 of the Companys Restated Certificate of
Incorporation, as amended, is to be amended and restated in its entirety to be and read as
follows:
  3.
    
    This Certificate of Amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation has been
duly adopted by the Board of Directors of this Corporation in accordance with Sections 242
of the General Corporation Law.4.
    
    This Certificate of Amendment to the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation has been duly approved, in accordance with Section 242 of the
General Corporation Law, by vote of the holders of a majority of the
outstanding stock entitled to vote thereon.
  /s/ STEPHEN A. SHERWINStephen A. SherwinChairman of the Board and Chief ExecutiveOfficer /S/ SHARON E. TETLOWSharon E. TetlowSecretary
Division of Advertising Practices 

Mary K. Engle 

Associate Director 

Tom Hughes 

Hunton & Williams LLP 

1900 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006-1109 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

April28, 2011 

Re: NAD Referral ofHewlett-Packard Co. 

Dear Mr. Hughes: 

As you know, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission has conducted an inquiry into 

whether representations made by Hewlett-Packard Co. regarding its printer ink cartridges may 

violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The National Advertising Division of 

the Council of Better Business Bureaus (NAD) referred this matter to us after the company 

stated it would neither implement nor appeal the NAD's recommendations pursuant to the 

NAD's self-regulatory review process. Upon review of the matter, we have determined not to 

take additional action at this time. This action is not to be construed as a determination that a 

violation did not occur. The Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the 

public interest may require. 

cc: Andrea Levine, Director, NAD 

Very truly yours, 

'/1L~~~ Mary~En~e 

Associate ifirector
#### Henry DUBBIN et al., Last known directors of and as Trustees for Bimini Run, Limited, a dissolved Liberian corporation, Appellants, v. CAPITAL NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, a national banking association, Appellee.

No. 70-956.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 10, 1971.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.1


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


The Board of Directors


Sauer-Danfoss Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements No. 33-53927 and No. 333-93745 on Form S-8 of Sauer-Danfoss Inc. of our report dated March 3, 2011 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Sauer-Danfoss Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which report appears in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of Sauer-Danfoss Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP


Des Moines, Iowa


March 3, 2011
Exhibit 4.14

Summary of Share Purchase Agreement, Assets Purchase Agreement and
Shareholders Agreement dated March 1, 2001, between Reshef, Soltam, K.M. and
the Registrant.


     Share Purchase Agreement
     Seller (Issuer): Reshef Technologies Ltd.
     Purchaser: Soltam Systems Ltd.
     Additional Party to the Agreement: Aryt Industries Ltd. as holder of 99%
     of Reshef's outstanding share capital (before closing).
     Purchased Shares: 76,400 ordinary shares of Reshef, representing, after
     issuance, 10% of the outstanding share capital of Reshef.
     Signing Date (final amendment): February 28, 2001.
     Purchased Price: US$300,000.
     Terms of Payment: Upon closing



     Assets Purchase Agreement
     Seller: K.M. Fuzes Engineering Ltd.
     Purchaser: Reshef Technologies Ltd.
     Purchased Assets: All K.M.'s assets and activities related to the
     development, manufacturing and sales of electronic fuzes.
     Signing Date (final amendment): February 28, 2001.
     Purchased Price: US$300,000.
     Terms of Payment: Upon closing
     Affirmative Covenant: K.M. shall cease all and any activity with respect
     to the sold assets.



     Shareholders Agreement (Reshef)
     Parties: Aryt Industries Ltd., Soltam Systems Ltd. and Reshef
     Technologies Ltd.
     Signing Date (final amendment): February 28, 2001.
     Option: Soltam has an option to purchase from Aryt 10% of Aryt's shares
     in Reshef (8.9% of the issued share capital of Reshef) for $500,000. The
     option is valid until the earlier between (i) the elapse of 2 years from
     February 28, 2001; or (Reshef's IPO).
     Affirmative Covenant: Certain customary understandings as to the daily
     management of Reshef, anti-dilution rights, tag along rights, right of
     first refusal, preemptive rights, confidentiality and non-competition -
     subject all to the parties' holdings in Reshef.