alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Notes **from Site Visit at Omnicare** 

**Attended by:** Omnicare Staff : Paul Baldwin, Bridget Mulvenna EPA Staff : Kristin Fitzgerald, Lisa Lauer, Jessica Young, Rachel Alford **Date:** November 15, 2012 EPA toured an Omincare long -term care pharmacy in Maryland. The facility fills 10,000 - 13,000 prescriptions per day (400 - 600 totes per day) for their customers which include long -term assisted care and skilled nursing facilities. They receive approximately 40 totes of returns per day from their customers, which represents approximately 10% of their sales. They do not take back controlled substances. Whether Omnicare can provide credit for a return depends on how it was paid for and t he type of packaging it is in. But even when it’s allowed, sometimes Omnicare does not restock and resell returned pharmaceuticals because the labor costs associated with restocking exceed the value of the pharmaceutical (especially for generics, which constitute the vast majority of their presc riptions). Omnicare indicated that long -term care facilities are sewering controlled substances, including liquids, pills and patches.
Exhibit 10.4


 


 






    


     


    

 





 


 



    2


     


    

 


 


 






    3


     


    

 


 


 






    4


     


    

 


 


 


 


5
Exhibit 10.33.2  AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO SPECIAL SEVERANCE PROGRAM FOR OFFICERS OF NORTHEAST UTILITIES SYSTEM COMPANIES   The Special Severance Program for Officers of Northeast Utilities System Companies (the Plan), is hereby amended, effective September 12, 2006, as follows:  Article VIII, Subsection (a) of the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows:  (a) Amendment or Termination.  Prior to the occurrence of a Change of Control, the Board or the Compensation Committee of the Board may amend or discontinue this Program at any time upon providing prior written notice to each Participant specifying the changes to be made.  Any amendment will not be effective until at least two years following such notice, except in the case of an amendment that does not materially impact the timing or amount of benefit provided or is required under statute, regulation, other law, or rule of a governing or administrative body having the effect of a statute or regulation.  Upon and following a Change of Control, this Program may not be amended or terminated in any way that would eliminate or reduce the payments and benefits owing to Participants under the Program.
No. 11198.

#### Durnell *v.*Bish et al., Partners as N. Bish & Son.

Decided October 26, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

*Mr. D. B. Van*Pelt, for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Gottshall &*Turner, for defendants in *error.*

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Spear, Shaucic and Price, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED NATURAL GAS COMPANY FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE TO EXHIBIT I TO FORM 8-K
FILED WITH THE SEC ON JANUARY 27, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,688,645
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  1,538,616
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,437,611
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       516,552
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 353,795
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,535,219
<COMMON>                                       263,858
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      527,102
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,545,664
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               2,376,310
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,763,678
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 685,731
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,749,186
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                6,535,219
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    3,074,350
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            73,581
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,541,330
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,614,911
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        459,439
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           (198,262)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 261,177
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       124,417
<NET-INCOME>                                   136,760
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  136,760
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       185,859
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      124,424
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         368,182
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.42


</TABLE>
Table 5.  Homeownership Rates for the United States:  1965 to 2000



           First   Second    Third   Fourth
   Year   Quarter  Quarter  Quarter  Quarter

2000.....    67.1     67.2
1999.....    66.7     66.6     67.0     66.9
1998.....    65.9     66.0     66.8     66.4
1997.....    65.4     65.7     66.0     65.7
1996.....    65.1     65.4     65.6     65.4
1995.....    64.2     64.7     65.0     65.1
1994.....    63.8     63.8     64.1     64.2
1993\r...    63.7     63.9     64.2     64.2

1993.....    64.2     64.4     64.7     64.6
1992.....    64.0     63.9     64.3     64.4
1991.....    63.9     63.9     64.2     64.2
1990.....    64.0     63.7     64.0     64.1
1989\r...    63.9     63.8     64.1     63.8

1989.....    63.9     63.9     64.0     63.8
1988.....    63.7     63.7     64.0     63.8
1987.....    63.8     63.8     64.2     64.1
1986.....    63.6     63.8     63.8     63.9
1985.....    64.1     64.1     63.9     63.5
1984.....    64.6     64.6     64.6     64.1
1983.....    64.7     64.7     64.8     64.4
1982.....    64.8     64.9     64.9     64.5
1981.....    65.6     65.3     65.6     65.2
1980.....    65.5     65.5     65.8     65.5
1979\r...    64.8     64.9     65.8     65.4

1979.....    65.3     65.1     66.0     65.8
1978.....    64.8     64.4     65.2     65.4
1977.....    64.8     64.5     65.0     64.9
1976.....    64.6     64.6     64.9     64.8
1975.....    64.4     64.9     64.6     64.5
1974.....    64.8     64.8     64.6     64.4
1973.....    64.9     64.4     64.4     64.4
1972.....    64.3     64.5     64.3     64.4
1971.....    64.0     64.1     64.4     64.5
1970.....    64.3     64.0     64.4     64.0
1969.....    64.1     64.4     64.4     64.4
1968.....    63.6     64.1     64.1     63.6
1967.....    63.3     63.9     63.8     63.5
1966.....    63.5     63.2     63.3     63.8
1965.....    62.9     62.9     62.9     63.4

\r Revised.
- cook1
- cook2
No. 11561.

#### The State, ex rel. Herrman, City Solicitor, *v.*The Oakwood Street Railway Company.

Decided October 19, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Montgomery county .o

*Mr. Robert R.*Nevin, prosecuting attorney; *Mr Philo G. Burnham,*city solicitor; *Mr. Walter V. Snyder, Mr. Charles J. Brennan*and *Mr. William A. Pohlman,*assistant city solicitors, for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. McMahon & McMahon,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.
Dear Mr

. Gallaway :

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing fro m your petition (Docket No. FAA−2015

− 3697 )

. This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make (s) , model (s) , and type(s)(i.e. , fixed

- wing, rotorcraft, lighter

- than

- air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description (s) should include the maximum weight ( including payload)

. This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). Please submit the additional information (non

- proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov

. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information ), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e

- mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 11/26/15 . I f we do not receive the information , we will close the dock et without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

- 4549

. Sincerely, /S/ Michael J. Cameron Program Analyst
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Third Quarter 2005 and 2006
                 (in percent)



                                     Third      Third          90-Percent
Area                                quarter    quarter   Confidence Interval (&plusmn;)a
                                     2005       2006    of 2006 rate  of difference

United States.....................      68.8       69.0        0.5         0.4

  Inside Metropolitan
     Statistical Areas............      67.3       67.6        1.3         0.5
    In principal cities...........      54.0       54.6        1.0         0.5
    Not in principal cities
    (suburbs).....................      76.3       76.2        1.2         0.5
  Outside Metropolitan
    Statistical Areas.............      76.0       75.8        2.6         0.7

 Northeast........................      65.1       65.5        0.9         0.8
 Midwest..........................      73.3       72.8        1.0         0.7
 South............................      70.6       70.6        0.9         0.6
 West.............................      64.2       65.3        1.2         0.8
    aA 90-percent confidence interval is a measure of an estimate's reliability.  The larger 
the confidence interval is, in relation to the size of the estimate the less reliable the estimate.
Note:  Metropolitan Statistical Area data for 2005 and later are not comparable to earlier data.  
Beginning in  first quarter 2005, the Current Population Survey/HousingVacancy Survey is using the 
new metropolitan and micropolitan definitions that were announced by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) in June 2003, and were based on the application of the 2000 standards to Census 2000 data.  
OMB announced updates as of December 2003, based on application of the 2000 standards to more recent
Census Bureau estimates.  In this report, outside Metropolitan Statistical Areas includes micropolitan 
and non-metropolitan statistical areas.  The December 2003 definitions are available at: 
 http//www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metrodef.html and http:/www/census.gov/population/estimates/about metro.html.
### Gormas, Michael (OST) F rom: Sent: To : Subject: Peter Lanciano Tuesday, July 08, 2014 12 :1 9 P M Gormas, Michael (OST) Docket DOT -OST - 2009- 0305 T his e-mail was original l y sent toMr. Martin re : ai r service in Tup el o , MS. It is just my strong o pi nton As a commerc i al f l yer residing in the Tupelo, Missi ssipp i are a , I h ave be e n very supportive of E AS for Tupelo Regional Airpo rt. Silver Airways h as been a "disaster" and has b e en largely res p onsib l e for t h e decline i n passe n ger traffic (although my p ersonal experiences h ave been p osit ive fo r t h e m ost part). To me, the cho i ce b etween A i r Choice O ne and S ea port is not as c ri ti cal as the destinations t h at w ill b e offered the new carrier . . It i s imperat ive that Tupelo flyers have the c h o ice of flying to B OTH Nashville and Memphis . Me mp his i s n o longe r an importa nt hub for many national carrie rs and Nas hvi l l e offe rs many more options fo r direct and non-stop connections . Of course, hav i ng Sout h west Airli nes is anot he r big plus for Nashville. T h ank you . Ph il ip Peter Lanciano

1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6077

RONNIE PHILLIPS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES MOLONY

CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South

Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-99-313-3-13BC)

Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 5, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Phillips appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Phillips v. South Carolina, No. CA-99-313-3-13BC

(D.S.C. Dec. 15, 1999). 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
No. 11048.

#### Shirkey, Trustee, *v.*Jervis et al.

Decided October 5, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Lawrence county.

*Mr. Thos. D. Shirkey*and *Mr. John Hamilton,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. A. R. Johnson,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Shaucic and Price, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21

Video
Display Corporation
Subsidiary Companies

|Lexel Imaging Systems, Inc.
1501 Newtown Pike
Lexington, Kentucky                                                   |  | Aydin Displays, Inc.
1 Riga Lane
Birdsboro, Pennsylvania           
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Fox International Ltd., Inc.
23600 Aurora Road
Bedford Heights, Ohio                                                |  | Mengel Industries, Inc.
3110 West Ridge Pike
Sanatoga, Pennsylvania
|Southwest Vacuum Devices, Inc
1868 Tucker Industrial Drive
Tucker, Georgia                                          |  | XKD Corporation
18450 Technology Drive
Morgan Hill, California     
|Video Display (Europe), Ltd.
Unit 5 Old Forge Trading Estate
Dudley Road, Stourbridge
West Midlands DY9 8EL
England |  |                                                                    
|Z-Axis, Inc.
15 Eagle Street
Phelps, New York                                                                       |  |                                                                    
|Teltron Technologies, Inc.
2 Riga Lane
Birdsboro, PA                                                                |  |                                                                    

---
No. 11528.

#### The Milburn Wagon Co. *v.*Gawronski, by etc.

Decided February 8, 1910.

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*Messrs. Smith & Baker-,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. A. Thatcher,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, C. J., Crew and Price, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1083
MIRNA RODRIQUEZ , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ERIC K. FANNING, Secretary of the Army , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 01654

- TSE

- JFA )

Submitted : September 12, 2017 Decided: September 21, 2017

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., BYNUM & JENKINS, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Kimere J. Kimball, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublis hed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mirna Rodriquez app eals the district court’s orders deeming the Appellee’s statement of undisputed facts as admitted and denying reconsideration, and granting summary judgment in favor o f the Appellee on Rodriquez’s claims of discrimination and
retaliation . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rodriquez v. Fanning , No. 1:15

- cv - 01654

- TSE

- JFA (E.D. Va. Nov. 22 & Dec. 16, 2016) . 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
262 La. 969

#### MATLOCK OIL CORPORATION et al. v. C. H. C. GERARD et al. MATLOCK OIL CORPORATION et al. v. Harper P. COLVIN et al. MATLOCK OIL CORPORATION et al. v. HASSIE HUNT TRUST et al.

No. 52712.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 31, 1972.

In re: Matlock Oil Corporation et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit Parish of Claiborne. 263 So.2d 413.

Writ: Not considered. Not timely filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and notes included in this Form 10-Q and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,932
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,350
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,151
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,785
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              761
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,981
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,901
<SALES>                                          4,542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,926
<CGS>                                            1,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,419
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 161
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,507
<INCOME-TAX>                                       852
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,655
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,655
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10



</TABLE>
#### Alfred MANHEIM, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

No. 66-521.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Jan. 31, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1967.

Morris Berick, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Dixon, Dejarenette, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of Rozen v. Chrysler Corp., Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 735 and Friedman v. Ford Motor Co., Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 371.

CARROLL, Judge

(concurring specially).

I concur because of the holding of this court in the Rozen case, followed in the Friedman case, in neither of which decisions did I participate.

By affirming the summary judgment in this case in favor of the defendant Ford Motor Company on the authority of the cited cases, we necessarily espouse the propositions of law involved here that when a new automobile (in this case a Lincoln Continental costing in excess of' $6,500) sold by a franchised dealer is materially defective mechanically and operationally, does not respond to reasonable efforts at correction or repair and proves to be what is known in the trade as a “lemon”,, the purchaser does not have a cause of action against the manufacturer for breach of implied warranty of fitness, because of absence of privity and because a manufacturer of automobiles, by entering into an agreement with its *dealer*specifying certain express warranties limits its warranty liability to those expressed, and thereby relieves-itself of any implied warranty of fitness..

In my opinion such holdings are deserving of reconsideration. See Hoskins v. Jackson Grain Co., Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 514; Matthews v. Lawnlite Company, Fla.1950, 88 So.2d 299; Continental Copper & Steel Indus, v. E. C. “Red” Cornelius, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 40; Sperry Rand Corporation v. Industrial Supply Corporation, 5 Cir.1964, 337 F.2d 363, 370-371.
## U. S. Steel - Keetac Phase II Indurating Line **Natural Gas Usage**

**2007 2008**  Amount by month(thousand cubic feet) Amount by month(thousand cubic feet) January 70684July 102080 January 115176July 87714 February 83004August 153069 February 105764August 88685 March 82503 September 96354 March 91746September 88323 April 62493 October 82966 April 58546 October 94688 May 99689 November 73996 May 114552 November 98037 June 91529 December 128603 June 79797 December 13785 Total Natural Gas Used 1126.97 million cubic feet Total Natural Gas Used 1036.813 million cubic feet**2009 2010** 

Amount by month(thousand cubic feet) Amount by month(thousand cubic feet) January 0July 0 January 154334.77July February 0August 0 February 95059August March 0September 0 March 98441 September April 0 October 0 April 66468 October May 0 November 0 May 147292 November June 0 December 24870 June 82515 December million cubic feet Total Natural Gas Used 24.87 million cubic feet Total Natural Gas Used 1552.61977**2011** Amount by month(thousand cubic feet) Amount by month(thousand cubic feet) 111768 January 202244July 103704 97128 February 205028August 92055 140217 March 222269 September 97316 173564 April 167152 October 85203 183093 May 156127 November 77366 202740 June 178063 December 105130 million cubic feet Total Natural Gas Used 1691.657 million cubic feet