alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 31, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), the Advanced Technology Institute has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) The identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties are the Advanced Technology Institute, Charleston, SC; Dimensions International, Inc., Washington, DC; Caterpillar, Mossville IL; ERIM, Ann Arbor, MI; Rockwell Collins, Milwaukee, WI; Radian, Washington, DC; AMSEC, Virginia Beach, VA; Sarnoff Corporation, Princeton, NJ; Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, MA and United Defense, Washington, DC. The nature and objectives of the venture are to substantially reduce the cost of support for aging weapon systems. The DSC will meet this objective by conducting pilot projects that focus on five thrust areas: (1) Effective supply partnerships, (2) streamlining maintenance processes, (3) significant improvement in quality of and access to technical data, (4) effective upgrade strategies, and (5) innovative training for sustainment.                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-25719 Filed 10-5-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
##### 



Exhibit 10.4
 EASTON BELL SPORTS, LLC
 2006 Equity Incentive Plan  (as of March 16, 2006)
 1. Purpose.
 Plan Company Units
 2. Eligibility for Awards.
 provided however Participants
 3. Administration.
 provided however




---



##### 



Committee
 Unallocated Units
 4. Effective Date and Term of Plan.
 Effective Date
  5. Units Subject to the Plan.
 (a) Number of Units
 (b) Units to Be Delivered
 (c) Changes in Units Common Units
 2




---



##### 



6. Terms and Conditions of Units.
 (a) Distribution Threshold Distribution Threshold
 (b) Vesting of Units Vested provided however
 (c) Nontransferability of Awards; Transfer of Units
  3




---



##### 



(d) Termination for Cause
 Cause
 (e) Other Termination
  (f) Termination of Service of Non-Employees
 (g) Mergers, etc.
 4




---



##### 



Unvested award provided however
 provided however
  7. Certain Rights.
  8. Effect, Discontinuance, Cancellation, Amendment and Termination.
  5




---



##### 



provided however
 9. Definitions
 Acquiring Person
 Affiliate
 Board  Board of Managers
 Cause
 Change of Control
 6




---



##### 



Committee
 Common Units
 Company
 Distribution Threshold
 Effective Date
 Investors
 LLC Agreement
 Participants
 Person
 Plan
 Securities Act
 Subsidiary
 Unallocated Units
 Unvested award
 Vested
 7
----

Action brought on 11 April 2006 — Chassagne v Commission

(Case F-39/06)

(2006/C 131/97)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, avocats)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an Official of the Commission, is originally from Réunion, a French Overseas Department. He brought the present action following the dismissal of a complaint which he had made against his salary statement for July 2005 containing the reimbursement of his annual travel expenses.

In support of his action, the applicant alleges that Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations, in the version in force since 1 May 2004 is illegal. He claims that that provision is contrary to Community law in that it entails differences in remuneration based on the place of origin of Officials as well as discrimination contrary to Articles 12 EC and 229 EC amongst others, and more generally on the basis of nationality, belonging to a linguistic minority, ethnic origin or race.

The applicant also claims that that provision infringes other general principles of Community law, such as the duty to state reasons and the principles of proportionality, transparency and sound administration, as well as of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

----
cq 

### Devany, Dennis (OST) From: leanne bula [zurichny@hotmail.com1 ',
.. Sent:**Sat~rday,** February 13,20108:15AM



### ,To: Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST)

Subject: cape air
Dear

# sTr,' ., I am writing toyou to express myfrustration with the local legislatures decision to abandon Cape Airfor Colgan. I have flown Cape Air numerous times since its arrival in Plattsburgh. I have always found extremely competitive rates. The airlines competitive rates are what caught my eye in the first place. I was able to fly to Boston less expensively than if I drove (tolls, gas, and hotel garage fees). The staffwas always extremely curteous and professional. The size ofthe plane while small was comfortable for a quick 45 miriute flight. All the flights I was on were full or nearly full. However, I was always able to purchase my tickets last minute. The flights I took were always on time oreven early! Afterwatching the PBS Frontline documentary, I am even more convinced that Cape Air not Colgan is the right choice for Plattsburgh. Colgan's record ofsafety, cost cutting incentives, and response to the horrific crash in Buffalo make itclear that customer satisfaction and more importantly safety are not numberone. Getting the airplane to the next gate noquestions asked is their primary concern. Cape Air's reliability
. and impeccable safety record are most importantto me. I was planning to take my husband and young children to Boston to experience the wonderful museums. We will be driving ifColgan Air is in place atthe Plattsburgh airport. I am not willing to give my business to a company thattreats its employees unfairly and provides little regard forthe safety oftheir employees ortheircustomers. I urge you to reconsiderthe legislatures decision and reconsider Cape Air for providing airservice from Plattsburgh NYto Boston. It. is in the best interest ofthose who fly and the Plattsburgh Airport's future. Sincerely, Leanne Bula Chazy, NY
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.

1,
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEBRUARY 23, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-13001

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A97-949-947

PAULIN NAVARD,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

_________________________

(February 23, 2009)

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Paulin Navard, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the
denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the

Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture and Other

Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§

1158, 1231; 8 C.F.R. § 208.16. The Board found that Navard failed to establish

that he suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground. We deny the

petition.

Substantial evidence supports the finding by the Board and the immigration

judge that Navard failed to establish that his persecution was on account of a

protected ground. See Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 434, 438 (11th Cir.

2004). Navard argues that the immigration judge failed to consider his testimony

about his persecution, but the immigration judge referred to Navard’s testimony

repeatedly in her decision to deny Navard’s application. Navard testified that he

and his family were victims of crimes by a man named Paulson, but Navard failed

to explain how those crimes were related to a protected ground. The Board did not

err when it dismissed Navard’s petition.

We DENY Navard’s petition for review.

PETITION DENIED.

2
|                                                                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                                            
|View History:                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                
|Montana Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                
|Montana Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 5      | 8      | 0      | 1      | 1      | 19     | 28     | 47     | 3     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 29     | 45     | 4      | 4      | 2      | 1      | 9      | 2      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 31     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                    
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                              
|View History:                                                                     
|                                                                                  
|U.S. Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                  
|                                                                                  
|U.S. Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        | 679    |        |        |        |        | 681    | 638    | 622    | 678   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 619    | 640    | 610    | 630    | 624    | 655    | 776    | 920    | 931    | 998   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1,078  | 976    | 973    | 725    | 721    | 696    | 653    | 624    | 548    |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY SCOTT HERMANSKI,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

ISIDRO BACA; NEVADA ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 14-15485

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00127-RCJ-VPC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 14, 2016** 

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and REINHARDT and CHRISTEN, Circuit

Judges.

FILED

APR 20 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Gregory Scott Hermanski appeals the district court’s denial of his federal

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Hermanski argues that the district court

erred by not considering the merits of his untimely petition because he made a

sufficient showing of actual innocence.

A petitioner is entitled to merits consideration of an untimely habeas petition

if he can “show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have

found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Schlup v. Delo,

513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995). A jury convicted Hermanski of armed robbery and

armed burglary. Before the district court, Hermanski offered an affidavit from a

fellow laborer who purported to be with Hermanski most of the day of the robbery,

but also admitted that he left Hermanski briefly around the time of the robbery. 

This alibi witness stated that he did “not believe that [Hermanski] could have

robbed the motel during the time [he] was gone,” but did not provide an alibi for

Hermanski. The times used by the witnesses were approximates, cash and a knife

found on Hermanski matched those from the robbery, and the motel clerk

identified Hermanski as the assailant shortly after the robbery took place. 

1 The parties are familiar with the facts, so we will not recount them

here.

2
Hermanski was not entitled to merits consideration of his untimely petition, even in

light of this new evidence.

Hermanski also argues that the district court should have ordered the full

trial court record and held an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of his

claims. But our case law only requires such robust inquiry where the record shows

that “circumstances consistent with petitioner’s petition” would entitle him to

equitable tolling. See Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919, 924 (9th Cir. 2003). No

such circumstances exist here.

AFFIRMED.

3
STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

PMN: 09-0142 

Standard Review Report 2/19/2009 Revised 12/10/2009

 (Change in description of use only) 

ENGINEER: Arnold \ AG 

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE:

OTHER USES:

MSDS: Yes Label: No 

Gen Eqpt: approved safety glasses or goggles / compatible 

chemical-resistant gloves and protective clothing / adequate 

ventilation to keep airborne concentrations low 

Respirator: Follow OSHA respirator regulations found in 29 CFR 

1910.134 or related country specific or EU standards 

Health Effects: irritating to eyes and respiratory system / 

slight skin irritation may occur / may irritate gastrointestinal 

tract / high concentrations of dusts may be irritating to eyes, 

skin, mucous membranes, and respiratory tract. toxicological 

properties have not been fully investigated 

TLV/PEL: 

None Established 

CRSS : 

Chemical Name: 3'H-Cyclopropa[1,9][5, 

6]fullerene-C60-Ih-3'-butanoic acid, 3'-phenyl-, methyl ester 

S-H20: 0.000001 g/L @ 

VP: 1.0E-6 torr @ 

MW: 911.00 %<500 %<1000 

Physical State and Misc CRSS Info: 

Neat: Mfg: Proc/Form: End Use: 

Consumer Use:

SAT (concerns) (01/13/2009): 

 

 

Migration to groundwater: Unknown 

PBT rating: PBT1 PBT rating: P Unknown; B Unknown; T1 
Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation 

Eco: 1 No releases to Water 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2B 

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: 

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: 

P2 Claim:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No 
STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

PMN: 09-0142 

 

Number of Sites/ Location:

Days/yr: 

Basis: 

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may 

coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same 

medium. 
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes:

Basis: 

Inhalation: 

Dermal:
STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

PMN: 09-0142 

Number of Sites/ Location:

Unknown Customer Sites 

Days/yr:

Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may 

coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same 

medium.
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes:

Basis:

Inhalation:

Dermal:
STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

PMN: 09-0142 

Number of Sites/ Location: 

Unknown Sites 

Days/yr: 

Basis: 

Process Description: 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may 

coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same 

medium.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes:
Basis:

Inhalation:

 

Dermal:
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certificate of ChiefFinancial OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

               In connection with the quarterly report of Speizman Industries, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 27, 2003, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Paul R.M. Demmink, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

-  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  
-  The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results ofoperations of the Company. 

Date:  February 10, 2004

 

|   | /s/*Paul R.M. Demmink                                                  *Paul R.M. Demmink    Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|