alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Grafe , Jerom e (PEP )

Subject : Sent : To : Cc : From : Tin a St . Gelai s [tinastgelais@yahoo.com ] Monday , Septembe r24 , 201 2 1:0 8 P M Grafe , Jerom e (DEP ) Fichter , Katherin e (DOT ) Blue/re d lin e connecto r Ia mwritin g t

o urge you t

o suppor t th e fina l desig

n an dconstructio n o f

th e Red-Blue Connecto

r betwee n Bowdoi n an

d Charle s Stree

t station s i n Boston . Ifin dtha t Eas t Bosto n residents continue t

o b e cu t ou t o f th e equation , however, endur e th e mos t impacts . I a

m aprou dcommunit

y activis t an dI wan t m y tow n to flouris h bu

t w e nee d help . W e nee d connection s t

o th e res t o f th e cit y s o tha t peopl e wan t t o mov e her e an dgenerat e Eas t Boston' s economy . Connec t us . Giv e u

s th e opportunit

y to reduc

e ca r traveller s o

n ou r streets . Afterall , w

e endur e s o much , th

e Airport , th

e airpor t shuttles , propose d ethanol trains , propose

dcasino , th

e ga s tanks , th

e ga s tankers , th

e tolls . Eas

t Boston resident

s deserv e this . Giv e u

s th e chanc e t o brin g mor

e peopl e t o ou r loca l econom y an dth e ability to hav

e resident s t o brin g th e econom y home . Pleas

e d o no t scra p plans , w

e ar e alway s pushe

daside . Let

u s b e th e nex t "Innovatio n District " o r th e othe r "Centra l Square" . W

e ar e dependin

g o n thi s connection , d

o wha t i s righ t fo r Eas t Boston . Than k you , Tin aSt . Gelais-Kelly

l
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4406 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 99 Macombs Place in New York, New York, 

as the ‘‘Tuskegee Airmen Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4406 EH

1 SECTION 1. TUSKEGEE AIRMEN POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 99 Macombs Place in New York, 

4 New York, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Tuskegee Airmen Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Tuskegee Airmen Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 

2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4406 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostOffice Building’’. York, New York, as the ‘‘Tuskegee Airmen Post al Service located at 99 Macombs Place in New
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BUCKHEAD AMERICA CORPORATION FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER  31,  1999,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000



<S>                                                  <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                           JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                   2,391
<SECURITIES>                                             1,312
<RECEIVABLES>                                            4,377
<ALLOWANCES>                                             376
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         14,859
<PP&E>                                                   43,414
<DEPRECIATION>                                           3,321
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           58,715
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    11,316
<BONDS>                                                  32,779
<COMMON>                                                 21
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              3,000
<OTHER-SE>                                               19,434
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             58,715
<SALES>                                                  25,887
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         32,299
<CGS>                                                    21,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            22,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         3,336
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       3,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          2,724
<INCOME-TAX>                                             1,055
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      1,669
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             1,669
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.61



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Ms. HOCHUL:
       H.R. 6328.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
     States.
```
RECORD OF VISIT CONFERENCE OR TELEPHONE CALL

TIME DATE

NAME (S) OF PERSON (S) CONT ACTED OR IN CONFERENCE AND LOCATION ROUTING

SYMBOL INITIALS

SUBJECT

DIGEST

CONCLUSION, ACTION TAKEN, OR REQUIRED

DATE TITLE SIGNATURE

FAA Form 1360-33 (10/12) Supersedes Previous Edition Page 1
DIGEST (CONT ) 

FAA Form 1360-33 (10/12) Supersedes Previous Edition Page 2
# C_2014292EN.01002501.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — RWE and RWE Dea v Commission

(Case T-543/08) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - Liability of a parent company for the infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiary and by a joint venture owned in part by it - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Presumption where the parent company holds 100 % of the shares - Succession of undertakings - Proportionality - Equal treatment - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction))

2014/C 292/30

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: RWE AG (Essen, Germany); and RWE Dea AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Stadler, M. Röhrig and S. Budde, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis and R. Sauer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, primarily, for annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on them.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) in so far as the European Commission found therein that RWE AG and RWE Dea AG had participated in the infringement after 2 January 2002; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) in so far as the European Commission found therein that RWE AG and RWE Dea AG had participated in the infringement after 2 January 2002;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on RWE and RWE Dea at EUR 3 5 8 88  562; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on RWE and RWE Dea at EUR 3 5 8 88  562;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay one fifth of the costs incurred by RWE and RWE Dea. RWE and RWE Dea shall bear four fifths of their own costs and pay four fifths of the Commission’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay one fifth of the costs incurred by RWE and RWE Dea. RWE and RWE Dea shall bear four fifths of their own costs and pay four fifths of the Commission’s costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 10.2
 
  
 
 Grant of Option
 Terms and Conditions
 Expiration Date
 Exercise of Option Exhibit A
 Method of Exercise and Payment for Shares
 Transferability




---



##### 



Exercise in the Event of Death
 Exercise in the Event of Disability
 Exercise After Termination of Employment
 Termination of Employment for Cause
 Securities Law Restrictions
  2




---



##### 



Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreement
    Agreement to Terms of the Plan and Agreement
 Minimum Exercise ___
 Fractional Shares
 Change in Capital Structure
 3




---



##### 



Notice
 If to the Company:
    
    ARRIS Group, Inc.3871 Lakefield DriveSuwanee, Georgia 30024Attn: Larry Margolis, Executive Vice PresidentIf to the Participant:
 No Right to Continued Employment
 No Stockholder Rights
 Binding Effect
 Conflicts
 Governing Law
 Tax Consequences and Section 409A
 4




---



##### 



Withholding Obligations
 Amendment or Termination
 Definitions
 Affiliate
 Cause
 Code
 Competing Business
 Disabled
 Fair Market Value
 5




---



##### 



COMPANY:ARRIS GROUP, INC.By:Name:Title:PARTICIPANT:Participant
 6




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A  Vesting Provisions
 Exhibit A
 1. General Vesting
 Service-Based Vesting
 [thirty-three] [33] [first and second] [thirty-four] [34] [third]
 Performance-Based Vesting
  Percentage of Shares forwhich Option may be
    
    CumulativeVesting Date
    
    Performance Target
    
    Exercised
    
    Performance Target
 2. Accelerated Vesting
 Accelerated Vesting on Death
  Accelerated Vesting on Disability
  7




---



##### 



Accelerated Vesting on Retirement
  8
#### ROOF v. FECHTEL et al.

No. 35944.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 30, 1953.

John A. Cochran, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Ivy, Ivy & Ivy, Waurika, Draper Grigs-by, Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

ARNOLD, Justice.

A judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs on two separate actions consolidated in the trial court from which judgment defendant appealed. The order overruling the motion for new trial was entered on the 12th day of November, 1952. The appeal was filed herein March 18, 1953.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that there was no extension of time in which to file the appeal in the Supreme Court and that under the provisions of 12 O.S.1951 § 972, the time in which to appeal expired on February 12, 1953, tljie motion for new trial having been overruled and- notice of appeal given on November 12, 1952. There had been no extension of time to file the appeal, though there was an order extending the time in which to prepare, serve and settle case made. The appeal must be dismissed. In Reed v. Arney, 204 Okl. 4, 226 P.2d 418, 419, it is stated:

> “Where the petition in error with record or case made is not filed within three months after the judgment or final order made in the case and there has been no order of the trial court extending the time for appeal as provided by 12 O.S.1941, § 972, as amended by the Session Laws of 1949, page 97, section 1, the appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”

See also Adams v. Hobbs, 204 Okl. 85, 226 P.2d 913.

It appearing therefore that the appeal was not filed within three months after the final order entered by the trial court extending the time to file the appeal the appeal is dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Padilla, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.), rendered August 25, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The arresting officers, while leaving the building which was the subject of an unrelated investigation, observed defendant selling crack. Defendant and the purchaser were immediately apprehended. Fourteen blue-capped vials of crack were recovered from defendant’s pocket, and one blue-capped vial was recovered from the other man. At trial, one of the officers testified that he initialled the top of each vial, placed all the vials in a sealed envelope, wrote his name on the flap of the envelope, and forwarded it to the police lab. The police chemist testified that she received the sealed envelope, on whose flap the arresting officer’s name was written, extracted blue-capped vials of crack, and that the powder therein tested positive for cocaine. The chemist’s lab records, however, did not indicate that the vials had been individually initialled. She also testified that ballpoint pen writing on crack vials does smudge.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People *(People v Allah,*71 NY2d 830, 831), defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. Whatever minor inconsistencies existed in the testimony of the police officers did not render their testimony incredible as a matter of law *(People v Lozado,*157 AD2d 630), and we find no grounds to disturb the jury’s findings of credibility on appeal *(see, People v Montanez,*41 NY2d 53, 57). Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence. *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490.)

Inconsistencies between police officer testimony and a lab report, while reflecting on the weight of the evidence, did not undermine the chain of custody *(People v Newman,*129 AD2d 742). Similarly, there is no requirement that an officer initial vials, and the failure to do so goes to the weight of the evidence, and not to its admissibility *(People v Cobb,*157 AD2d 664, *lv denied*75 NY2d 917). The testimony at trial provided *21reasonable assurances of an unbroken chain of custody, and that the vials had not been tampered with *(People v Donovan,*141 AD2d 835, 836, *lv denied*72 NY2d 1044).

Defendant’s challenges to the court’s instructions were unpreserved as a matter of law, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Ross and Smith, JJ.
# C_2008272EN.01003503.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/35

---

Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Margherita v Commission

(Case T-320/08)

(2008/C 272/68)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Margherita Soc. coop. rl (Cariati, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.

Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c

Commission

---
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08490**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  08490\08490 Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 08490\08490_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 08490\08490_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 08490\08490_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 08490\08490_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08490\08490_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08490\08490_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08490\08490_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08490\08490_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08490\Supporting Documents\08490 D3-1 Pond-1 rev2011feb04.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08490\Supporting Documents\08490_A5-2 Map-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08490\Supporting Documents\08490_A5-3 WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08490\Supporting Documents\08490_D3-1 Pond-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08490\Supporting Documents\08490_Submittal Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08490\Supporting Documents\Emails\08490 D3-1 Pond-1 rev2011feb04.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08490\Supporting Documents\Emails\Steam Electric ICR Plant 08490 - Newton Power Station.rtf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### GANOTE v. STATE.

No. A-11802.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 4, 1953.

O. C. Lassiter, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Kent Ganóte entered a plea of guilty in the court of common pleas of Tulsa County to a charge of unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. This was on the first day of April, 1952. Prior thereto, and on the 11th day of March, 1952, he had entered a plea of not guilty and demanded trial by jury. The jury was available for the trial the day thereafter that the case was set for trial, and he thereupon changed his plea from “not guilty” to “guilty.” The court entered judgment on the plea of guilty, assessing punishment at thirty days in the county jail, and a fine of $75, sentence to run concurrently with judgment entered in another case at the same time decided (No. 71356), in the same court.

Being dissatisfied with the punishment inflicted, or just to put off the day of reckoning, one or both, an appeal was perfected to this court. No evidence being taken and no motion for new trial was filed. In the petition in error the complaint only is that the penalty is excessive. No brief has been filed, and oral argument on behalf of defendant was waived.

*798Under the facts stated, and in view of the long published rules of this court, further consideration of the case is not justified.

The judgment of the court of common pleas of Tulsa County is affirmed.

JONES and BRETT, JJ., concur.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 10 March 2009 – Piccoli v OHIM (Shape of a seashell)**

**(Case T-8/08)**

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Shape of a seashell – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Lack of distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3) (see paras 17, 21-25, 38-40)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2007 (Case R 530/2007-1) concerning an application to register as a Community trade mark a three‐dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a seashell. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | G.M. Piccoli Srl |
| Community trade mark sought: | Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a seashell seen from four different angles for goods in Class 30 – Appliction No 4522892 |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Application for registration dismissed in respect of ‘preparations of cereals, patisseries, confectionery and ice cream’ |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders G.M. Piccoli Srl to pay the costs. |
EDUCATION

IN APPALACHIA

In Appalachia, 30.6% of adults age 25+ with a bachelor’s 

degree earned it in a STEM field. The U.S. figure is 34.7%.

8.3%

of Appalachian adults

age 25+ have an 

associate’s degree— 

slightly more than the 

8.2% of U.S. adults.

85.9%

of Appalachian adults

age 25+ have earned 

a high school diploma,

compared with 87.0%

of U.S. adults.

Use The Appalachian Region: A Data Overview from the 2012–2016 American Community Survey—also known as 

the Chartbook—to discover more about education in Appalachia. Authored by the Population Reference Bureau with 

the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Chartbook features data on income, employment, education, and other 

indicators at the regional, subregional, state, and county levels, and examines data change over recent years to 

show trends.

DATA SNAPSHOT

23.2%

of Appalachian 

adults age 25+ 

hold a bachelor’s 

degree. The U.S. 

figure is 30.3%.

The share of adults age 25+ with 

a bachelor’s 

degree is highest 

in Southern 

Appalachia and 

lowest in Central 

Appalachia.

HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA ASSOCIATE’S DEGREE

BACHELOR’S DEGREE BACHELOR’S DEGREE BY SUBREGION

STEM DEGREE

Find more data on this and other topics at www.arc.gov/chartbook

13.6%

24.3%

19.7%

25.1%

23.7%
P.1 

RCRA Box 321 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

255) OGRC-S0042 

Docket Number: 

F-93-OGRC-FFFFF 

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:33 PM Sheet 255 of 259 
P.2 

0GRC-$OQ*1d, 

Science Applications International Corporation 

An Employee-Owned Company 

November 14, 1990 

Ms. Bonnie Robinsbn 

Office of Solid Waste 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

2800 Crystal Drive 

Crystal City, VA. 22203 

REFERENCE: EPA Contract No.: 68-WO-0025 

SAIC Project No.: 1-824-03-325-00 

Dear Bonnie, 

Please find enclosed two copies of the summary of UIC information I 

collected from Jeff Smith, Office of Drinking Water. Unfortunately, the 

numbers do not include a breakdown between wastes received specifically from 

crude oil reclaimers and wastes from E and P operations. Jeff mentioned that 

this information may be available from individual State UIC inspectors. 

Kim Gotwals 

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 

cc: Ron Rimelman, SAIC 

8400 Westpark Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102 

Other SAIC Offices: Albuquerque, 8oston, Colorado Springs, Dayton, Huntsville, Las Vegas. Los Angeles. Oak Ridge, Orlando, Palo Alto, San Diego, Seattle, and Tucson