alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Governor, 

### William R. Rhodes Lt. Governor.Jennifer Allison-Ray
Sandra Miller Margaret Cook 

### ................ Lauri Charley Sr. Environmental Vacant OutreachSpecialist Executive Director 

### Planner 

### & Policy 

# - Environmental Analyst Intern



### ................ 

# I I Air Quality

Program Waste Program 

# cl Pesticide Program Water Quality Program Administration 

# Q

._...... I_

### ........



### ... ... Dan Marsin 

# i EPCRA Program Waste Program Solid Waste Program Dan Blair 

## : Manager 

## :

........ 

## _______.. Envlnmmental Com~liamx, I3 Glenn Stark Water Quality

Program Manager 

# 1 Sharon Dickey 

# u Cost Recovery 

# I Esperanza Mix PC0 II Beverly Gerlaugh 

# I EPCRA Environmental 

# I Rudy 

# I Brian Bennon Water Resources Protection Russell Betsuie Environmental Coordinator 

# -
QualitySpecialist 

# k-J Administrative

Assistant 

# u Janet Bollmann Hazardols Waste 

# I I Specialist 

# I Alriquez Manuel SolidWaste Technician Tony Maandless PC0 II 

# J ,,h ,tone 

### 111 

# ( Air Quality 

# H Lisa Antone Environmental Intern Bruce Robinson Water Quality Project Ann Long 

### Secretary Ill 

# H
I 

### ......V*a.nt. 

### ....

## :

............... Water Quality 

## : Project 

## :

....!+Y~.Y!K~~s~.
... 

## : 

# 4 LeroyWilliams Jr. Environmental 

# H Charles Enos Aquatic Scientist Sqet Antone



### Secretary I 

# I Engineer 

# I ;...... 

# .l

........ 

## : ...

# ."??.a?!.

... 

# i : Environmental 

## : 

## : Quality Project 

## : 

## : Associate 

## :

.................. 

### . 

# Vac??!

... 

# I Environmental a 

# 4Wahlean Riggs Environmental Quality Project 

## : ProjectAssociate 

## :
, ................. Assistant 

# Gih ~iver indian Community Department of~nvironmentaCQuaEty 7/10/07
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.33


OGE Energy Corp.
Director Compensation
Compensation of non-officer directors of the Company in 2015 included an annual retainer fee of $146,600, of which $51,600 was payable in cash in monthly installments and $95,000 was deposited in the director's account under the Company's Deferred Compensation Plan in December 2015 and converted to 3,859 common stock units based on the closing price of the Company's Common Stock on December 8, 2015. All non-officer directors received $2,000 for each Board meeting and $2,000 for each committee meeting attended. The lead director received an additional $20,000 cash retainer in 2015. The chairman of the Audit Committee received an additional $15,000 cash retainer in 2015.  The chairmen of the Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees received an additional $10,000 annual cash retainer in 2015. Each member of the Audit Committee also received an additional annual retainer of $5,000 and the Chair of the Audit Committee received a meeting fee of $2,000 for significant meetings (wither in person or by phone) with management to address Committee matters.  These amounts represent the total fees paid to directors in their capacities as directors of the Company and OG&E in 2015. 


Under the Company's Deferred Compensation Plan, non-officer directors may defer payment of all or part of their attendance fees and the cash portion of their annual retainer fee, which deferred amounts in 2015 were credited to their account as of the first day of the month in which the deferred amounts otherwise would have been paid.  Amounts credited to the accounts are assumed to be invested in one or more of the investment options permitted under the Company's Deferred Compensation Plan. In 2015, those investment options included a Company Common Stock fund, whose value was determined based on the stock price of the Company's Common Stock.  When an individual ceases to be a director of the Company, all amounts credited under the Company's Deferred Compensation Plan are paid in cash in a lump sum or installments. In certain circumstances, participants may also be entitled to in-service withdrawals from the Company's Deferred Compensation Plan.
EXHIBIT 10.33

                        PROMOTION LETTER OF JACK LITTLEY

                                   MEMORANDUM

TO:       John Littley III

FROM:     John Spotila

DATE:     February 20, 2003

SUBJECT:  Promotion to Senior Vice President

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

Dendy and I are very pleased to confirm your promotion to Senior Vice President,
Program and Information Services effective January 7, 2003. In this capacity,
you continue to report to me. In line with your new responsibilities, we have
decided to increase your base salary to $190,000 per year effective
retroactively to the effective date. With your incentive compensation plan of
$100,000, your new annual target compensation is $290,000 ($190,000 base,
$100,000 incentive).

We are pleased to advise you that the Board has approved the issuance to you of
new options for an additional 30,000 shares of GTSI Common Stock. The Grant Date
for these options is January 28, 2003. Your exercise price will be equal to the
closing price of the Company's Common Stock on the Grant Date. Your options will
vest and be exercisable, cumulatively, in four equal annual installments with
the first installment vesting on the first anniversary of the Grant Date. They
will be subject to the terms and provisions of a Stock Option Agreement which we
will be providing you shortly. Your options will expire, to the extent not
previously exercised, upon the earlier of ten years from the date of initial
vesting or one month after you cease to be a GTSI employee.

Bridget Atkinson will follow up with you as needed if you have any questions
about your new compensation. As always, we ask that you keep confidential all
matters associated with your compensation. Please sign below on the enclosed
copy of this memo to signify your acceptance of this new role within GTSI and
return it to Bridget as soon as possible.

Jack, this recognizes your excellent contributions to GTSI in the past and your
continued commitment to our success. You have our sincerest congratulations and
best wishes.

Acknowledged & Accepted:

John Littley III


                                       89
III 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 27 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should ensure 

that Israel is able to adequately address an existential Iranian nuclear 

threat and to support Israel’s right to respond to the potential threat 

of a Syrian S–300 air defense system. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2013 

Mr. TOOMEY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States 

should ensure that Israel is able to adequately address 

an existential Iranian nuclear threat and to support 

Israel’s right to respond to the potential threat of a 

Syrian S–300 air defense system. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Support of Israel 

5 Against Existential Threat Resolution of 2013’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 27 IS 

1 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SUPPORT TO ISRAEL TO 

2 ADDRESS IRANIAN AND SYRIAN THREATS. 

3 It is the sense of Congress that— 

4 (1) the United States should ensure that Israel, 

5 as a critical United States ally, is able to adequately 

6 address an existential Iranian nuclear threat, and 

7 the Secretary of Defense should seek related oppor8 tunities for defense cooperation and partnership on 

9 military capabilities where appropriate; and 

10 (2) the delivery of the S–300 air defense system 

11 to Syria would pose a grave risk to Israel, and the 

12 United States supports Israel’s right to respond to 

13 this grave threat as needed. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Prospect Flexible Income Fund, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended  September 30, 2020 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, M. Grier Eliasek, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. 
 /s/ M. Grier Eliasek
 M. Grier Eliasek
 Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)
 Date: November 12, 2020
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.76 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### Julia Giampino et al., Claimants, *v.*State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 35718.)

Court of Claims,

January 20, 1959.

*259
      *Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Melvyn N. Thaler*of counsel), for defendant.

*8. Herman Klarsfeld*for claimants.

Sidney Squibb, J.

The defendant, the State of New York, moves by order to show cause for an order requiring Richard Giampino, son of the claimants, to be examined before trial, as a witness. This motion was made after the defendant had examined the lady claimant before trial.

Her claim is predicated on the alleged negligence of the defendant in that she was (par. 5 of the pleading) *“*struck with great force and violence by a rolling, split, broken and defective beach umbrella on the beach at Jones Beach State Park.” Her husband’s claim is for loss of services, etc.

The transcript of the lady claimant’s testimony on the examination before trial confirms the movant’s position that Mrs. Giampino never saw the umbrella which struck her and could not give even prima facie evidence of what had happened immediately before the occurrence. She further testified that her said son, the prospective witness, did examine the alleged defective umbrella and reported the occurrence to certain employees at that park.

The Assistant Attorney-General, by affidavits and exhibit, demonstrated that the State has no *“*report ” of the occurrence. Said exhibit shows that the State has no record of any damaged or broken umbrella on the date alleged at Jones Beach State Park.

The motion papers and testimony of Mrs. Giampino amply bring this situation within the ambit of “ special circumstances ” prescribed in the last sentence of section 288 of the Civil Practice Act, for the examination of a witness. The judicial discretion resident in this court should be exercised in favor of the movant under the circumstances at bar.

We approve and reiterate the excellent legal reasoning and language employed by Del Vecchio, J. (Supreme Court, Oneida County), in *Mills*v. *Montana*(14 Misc 2d 414).

Motion granted. Short-form order signed.
From: "Joe Eutizi" <jeutizi@smeci.net>

To: Lanelle Wiggins/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/27/2011 03:54 PM

Subject: comments to SBAR on NSPS GHG rulemaking

My comments are attached. I will also send a copy in the US mail. If you have any questions contact

me.

This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended 

recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any 

unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the 

intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of 

the original message.

 

comments to SBARP on utility GHG NSPS rulemaking final.pdf
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Education

# ACTION:

Notice of OMB Approval.

                    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Department of Education would like to provide a notice of OMB approval for the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) information collection OMB #1875-0246 and FERPA Final regulation 34 CFR part 99 published in the                     **Federal Register**                    , Vol. 76, page 75639, on December 2, 2011. Because the FERPA program has been transferred from the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD) to the Office of Management (OM), OMB has assigned a new OMB control number #1880-0543 to this collection. This action has no impact on the FERPA information collection requirements or the FERPA regulations at 34 CFR part 99. The Department of Education would like to make note of this change in OMB control number.                

Dated: January 6, 2012.

Darrin A. King,

Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.

[FR Doc. 2012-330 Filed 1-10-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 1 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 1

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That provide the two Houses of Congress shall meet in the Hall of the 
House of Representatives on Thursday, the 4th day of January 2013, at 1 
o'clock post meridian, pursuant to the requirements of the Constitution 
and laws relating to the election of President and Vice President of 
the United States, and the President of the Senate shall be their 
Presiding Officer; that two tellers shall be previously appointed by 
the President of the Senate on the part of the Senate and two by the 
Speaker on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be 
handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the 
certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral 
votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and 
acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the 
letter ``A''; and said tellers, having then read the same in the 
presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes 
as they shall appear from said certificates; and the votes having been 
ascertained and counted in the manner and according to the rules by law 
provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of 
the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which 
announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, 
if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, 
together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the 
two Houses.

            Passed the Senate January 3, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. CON. RES. 1

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To provide for the counting on January 4, 2013, of the electoral votes 
         for President and Vice President of the United States.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6406
ROBERT COOPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DWIGHT JOHNSON; REDDICK LANE; ERIC JEFFERSON; TIMOTHY BULLOCK; ASHLEY RILEY; ALI CROSLAND; RONALD ORANGE; LEHRMAN W. DOTSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-cv00287-AMD) Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 24, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Cooper seeks to appeal the district court order denying Cooper’s motion for a temporary restraining order. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Coh en v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Cooper seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
#### In the Matter of Rose J. Gilman, Petitioner, against Joseph Schechter et al., Constituting the City Civil Service Commission, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

October 15, 1958.

*Spiegel & Davis*for petitioner.

*Peter Campbell Brown, Corporation Counsel (Eli Kramer*of counsel), for respondents.

John L. Flynn, J.

This proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to compel respondents to regrade petitioner’s answers and to place her name on the eligible list is denied.

The sole issue presented by the papers herein relates to whether petitioner received proper credit for her answers to an essay type examination. Petitioner asserts she should be given a passing grade since her answers to the questions were substantially correct.

There is nothing in petitioner’s proof to establish that the commission adopted incorrect or improper key answers as a standard in grading the papers. Respondents, on the other hand, reveal that the key answers contained other elements which petitioner was expected to discuss in her answers and that all of the papers were graded on the basis of the key answers. In addition respondents conclusively demonstrate that petitioner’s answers were inadequate.

Unquestionably the examiners graded the answers on an objective basis and standard. While there may be some question as to the judgment of the examiners in rating the answers, still petitioner does not establish that the respondents acted arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably either in adopting the answer guide or in grading the answers. Only where petitioner *162demonstrates that the respondents are patently wrong will the courts intervene (cf. *Matter of Bruno*v. *Kern,*174 Misc. 958).

The court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the commission in rating the papers of the candidates, especially where the respondents show a reasonable basis for their determination *(Matter of Sheridan*v. *Kern,*255 App. Div. 57, 59). In the absence of a showing of bad faith, unreasonableness or arbitrariness on the part of the respondents, this court lacks the power to compel respondents to increase the rating of the petitioner *(People ex rel. Braisted*v. *McCooey,*100 App. Div. 240; *Matter of Cavanaugh*v. *Watson,*201 Misc. 899, affd. 280 App. Div. 757, motion for leave to appeal denied 304 N. Y. 986; *Matter of Furman*v. *Marsh,*185 Misc. 209; *Matter of Konieczny*v. *Streeter,*182 Misc. 376, appeal dismissed 51 N. Y. S. 2d 752).

Petitioner also claims that the commission improperly referred her appeal back to one of the examiners who originally graded her paper for review. While such action ordinarily would be unreasonable since the examiner would be reviewing his own actions *(Matter of Quinn*v. *Streeter,*174 Misc. 1073), still petitioner was amply protected inasmuch as the examiner’s recommendations and the papers were thereafter reviewed by the committee on manifest errors consisting of two attorneys and the Acting Director of the Bureau of Examinations. Under these circumstances petitioner has no justifiable basis for complaint.

Petition dismissed. Settle order.