alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[J-110-2016][M.O. – Todd, J.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellant

v.

SHAWN LAMAR BURTON,

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 9 WAP 2016

Appeal from the Order of the Superior 

Court entered August 25, 2015 at No. 

1459 WDA 2013, vacating the order of 

the Court of Common Pleas of 

Allegheny County entered August 27, 

1993 at Nos. CP-02-CR-0004017-1993 

and CP-02-CR-0004276-1993 and 

remanding.

SUBMITTED: September 9, 2016

CONCURRING OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: MARCH 28, 2016

I join the majority opinion based upon the precedent established by 

Commonwealth v. Bennett, 593 Pa. 382, 930 A.2d 1264 (2007), supplemented by the 

present opinion’s developed explication of the unreasonableness in enforcing a strong 

presumption of access to public records at least as against unrepresented prisoners.

To the extent that the majority undertakes to reaffirm and buttress the logic of 

Bennett, however, I continue to have great difficulty with the approach to statutory 

construction by which the Bennett majority decoupled the “facts” contemplated by 

Section 9545(b)(ii) of the PCRA from the “claims” serving as the explicit bases for 

statutory post-conviction relief per Section 9543(a). See Bennett, 593 Pa. at 402-10, 

930 A.2d at 1275-80 (Saylor, J., dissenting).
i 

### ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL

FURNACES AND BOILERS

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT (Documents List):

Title Page

Table of Contents List

Table of Contents

CHAPTERS

========= Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Analytic Framework Chapter 3: Market and Technology Assessment Chapter 4: Screening Analysis Chapter 5: Markups for Equipment Price Determination Chapter 6: Engineering Analysis Chapter 7: Energy Consumption of Furnaces and Boilers Chapter 8: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis Chapter 9: Shipments Chapter 10: National Energy Savings and Consumer Impacts Chapter 11: Life-Cycle Cost Sub-Group Analysis Chapter 12: Manufacturer Impact Analysis Chapter 13: Utility Impact Analysis Chapter 14: Net National Employment Impact Analysis

Environmental Assessment Regulatory Impact Analysis

APPENDIXES

========== Appendix 5.1: Detailed Data for Equipment Price Markups Appendix 6.1: Technical Description of the Reverse Engineering Cost Estimation Methodology Appendix 6.2: Installation Cost Model Appendix 6.3: Determination of Furnace and Boiler Energy Use Appendix 6.4: Engineering Analysis Cost and Efficiency Tables Appendix 7.1: Reduced Set of Furnace Models Database Appendix 7.2: Decoding of Manufacturer Model Numbers Appendix 7.3: Determination of Basic Furnace Models Appendix 7.4: Furnace Fan Curves Appendix 7.5: Blower Fan Curves Appendix 7.6: Overall Air-Moving Efficiency Appendix 7.7: Gas and Electricity Use for Modulating Furnaces Appendix 8.1: Glossary of Variables and Their Values From EIA's RECS97ii Appendix 8.2: Distribution Discount Rates Appendix 8.3: LCC and PBP Results Using Alternative Installation Cost Scenarios Appendix 8.4: LCC and PBP Results Using Alternative Energy Price Scenarios Appendix 8.5: Analysis of Electricity Effi ciency Design Options for Furnaces and

Boilers Appendix 8.6: Furnace Airflow Capacity Testing Appendix 8.7: Power Consumption of ECM Blower Motors Appendix 8.8: Power Consumption of BC/ECM+ Blower Motors Appendix 8.9: Air Conditioner Operating Hours Appendix 10.1: National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Using Alternative Installation Costs and Energy Price Scenarios Acronyms and Abbreviations
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 Commerce

###### Office of the Secretary

The following individuals are eligible to serve on the Performance Review Board in accordance with the Senior Executive Service Performance Appraisal System of the Office of the Secretary: Karen F. Hogan, Kathleen J. Taylor, K. David Holmes, Jr., John J. Phelan, III, Linda Moye-Cheatham, Roger Baker, Christopher W. Strobel, James L. Taylor, and Raul Perea-Henze.

Deborah Jefferson,

Executive Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Performance Review Board.

[FR Doc. 00-27673  Filed 10-26-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-BS-M
July 29, 2015

ID: FAA-2015-2407-0001

United States Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Exemption Request Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of 2012

Dear Sir or Madam:

As a supplementation to our original 333 Exemption Application, dated June 19, 2015, 

we wish to provide to you the following additional information. 

The specific reasons we seek relief is to operate in the following areas of commerce:

1. Closed Set Filming

 Our MPTOM is outlined in the documents we have as a current attachment. 

Please refer to the attachment document labeled: PDC_Sup.PDF:

2. Geographical Mapping

3. Agricultural Mapping and Analysis

4. Real Estate Photography and Video

5. General Aerial Photography and Video

In addition, we are providing to you all of the Release forms we currently use in our film 

and photography operations. 

We hope this information helps sure up any concerns the FAA has toward our approval 

process. If more information is needed, we are always available to provide to your office 

any and all requested documentation. Thank you for you time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Brandon Horgeshimer

Pneumatic Drone Cinema Inc

3099 Anquilla ave.

Clermont FL 34711
(LOGO)ERNST&YOUNG LLP    Suite 1400              Phone: 512 478 9881
                         700 Lavaca              Fax:   512 473 3499
                         Austin, Texas 78701



                       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

Board of Directors
Temple-Inland Financial Services, Inc. and
     Subsidiaries (including Knutson Mortgage
     Corporation)

We have examined  management's  assertion  included in the  accompanying  report
titled REPORT OF MANAGEMENT  that  Temple-Inland  Financial  Services,  Inc. and
Subsidiaries  (including Knutson Mortgage  Corporation) (the "Company") complied
with  the  minimum  servicing  standards  set  forth  in  the  Mortgage  Bankers
Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS
during the 15 month period ended  December 31, 1997.  Management is  responsible
for the Company's  compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on  management's  assertions  about the Company's  compliance
based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's compliance with those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal  determination on the
Company's compliance with specified requirements.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the  Company  complied  with the
aforementioned  requirements during the 15 month period ended December 31, 1997,
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

                                             /s/Ernst & Young LLP

January 30, 1998



Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Reclamation Fish and Wildlife Service

# AGENCIES:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Rescission of notice of availability. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This notice announces the rescission of the notice of availability of the joint Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on October 20, 2000 (65 FR 63087). The Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Trinity River Mainstem Restoration in the                         **Federal Register**                         on October 20, 2000, was issued in error. The FEIS/EIR will be issued shortly. A revised notice of availability will be issued in the                         **Federal Register**                         at that time.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. MaryEllen Mueller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2606, Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 414-6464. 

Authority:                             NEPA, the National Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371*et seq.*); E.O. 11514, March 5, 1970, as amended by E.O. 11991, May 24, 1977; and CEQ Regulations 40 CFR 1503.1).                        

Willie R. Taylor,

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 00-27502 Filed 10-24-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Exhibit 32.A
 
 
 
 
 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 for the period ending March 31, 2010, of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James C. Yardley, Chairman of the Board and President, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ James C. YardleyJames C. YardleyChairman of the Board and President(Principal Executive Officer)Tennessee Gas Pipeline CompanyMay 7, 2010
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and will be retained by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS February 12, 2015 ABELACOSTA, CLERK LESTER RAY GUY Petitioner VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS Respondent NO. PD-1564-14 PD-1564-14 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 2/10/2015 10:18:55 PM Accepted 2/12/2015 8:51:33 AM ABEL ACOSTA CLERK * IN THE COURT OF
*
* CRIMINAL APPEALS
*

* AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE



### PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: 

### COMES NOW, LESTER RAY GUY, Appellant, and files this Motion for an Extension in 

### which to file a Petitioner for DiscretionaryReview. In support of this motion, Petitioner shows the Court the following: I. 

### The Petitioner's appeal was affirmed by the Third Court ofAppeals on October22, 2014. Motion for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc were denied on December 11, 2014. Appellant's 

### P.D.R. istherefore duebyJanuary 9,2015. Counsel hasrequested oneprevious extensions. This Court granted that extension. II. 

### Pursuantto Texas Rules of AppellateProcedure 68.2(c) Petitioner would herebyrequest an extension oftime in which to file his P.D.R. III. 

### Attorney for the Petitioner would further show the Court that he has been diligent in 

## preparingAppellant's applicationinthis case. Dueto counsel'strial andappellate schedulehe has

### not been able to complete the research and drafting ofthe application, and would therefore request 

### this extension so that he may timely do so. Counsel has had 3 jury trial settings in the last 35 days and was unable to complete the application. Counsel is currently in the middle ofa trial in Hays County on two first degree felonies, and was unable to complete the PDR timely due to the start and 

### preparation for this trial. Counsel will file the PDR on Tuesday February 17,2015, which is within 15 days ofthe date the PDR is due pursuant to TRAP 68.2( c). 

### WHEREFORE, Appellant prays the Court grant this Motion and extend the deadline for filing the Petitioner 's PDR to February 17, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, ARIEL PAYAN Attorney at Law 1012 Rio Grande Austin, Texas 78701 (512)478-3900 (512) 472-4102 (fax) Arielpayan@hotmail.com /s/ Ariel Payan ARIEL PAYAN State Bar No. 00794430
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### By my signature above I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Discretionary Review has been delivered to the Criminal District Attorney, on February 10, 2015.
#### SILVER BRAND CLOTHES, INC., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 76-1302.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 8, 1976.

Decided Nov. 19, 1976.

*750Stanley Goodman, Cincinnati, Ohio (Goodman & Goodman Co., L. P. A., Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief), for appellant.

David English Carmack, Atty., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Jr., and Grant W. Wiprud, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., John A. Field, III, U. S. Atty., Charleston, W. Va., on brief), for appellee.

Before WINTER, CRAVEN and BUTZ-NER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Taxpayer sought a refund of income taxes for the fiscal years ending 1967, 1968, and 1969. The refund claim was based upon a business loss, alleged to have occurred in 1964 and carried forward to the tax years in question. The loss was previously disallowed by the Tax Court in dealing with fiscal years 1965 and 1966. *Silver Brand Clothes, Inc. v. Commissioner,*31 T.C.M. 250 (1972). Based upon the Tax Court’s decision, the district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under the doctrines of *res judicata*and collateral estoppel, and it dismissed the complaint.

The district court did not lack *in person-am*or subject matter jurisdiction, but it correctly concluded that taxpayer was collaterally estopped from relitigating the deductibility of the 1964 loss for the fiscal years 1967-69 when those questions had been fully litigated in the Tax Court with respect to the years 1964-66. This is so because we perceive that the factual and legal questions now sought to be raised were all raised in the earlier litigation and decided adversely to taxpayer and there has been no intervening change in the law. We therefore affirm for the reasons sufficiently stated by the district court.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Homer MASSEY and Jack Hipshire, Movants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 14, 1951.

Lyttle & White, Manchester, for mov-ants.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Guy L. Dickinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of conviction for possession of liquor for sale in local option territory and imposing a fine of $100 and 60 days in jail each.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
EX-10(E)



 






EXHIBIT 10(e)




SUMMARY OF BASE SALARY AND ANNUAL INCENTIVE

COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS




     2006 Base Salary. On February 22, 2006, the Compensation and Management Development Committee
(the “Compensation Committee”) of the Board of Directors of The Sherwin-Williams Company
(“Sherwin-Williams”) set the 2006 base salaries of the executive officers named in the Summary
Compensation Table of Sherwin-Williams’ 2006 Proxy Statement, effective upon each officer’s 2006
annual review date. The base salaries of the named executive officers for 2006 are as follows:
C.M. Connor, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer ($1,116,648); S.P. Hennessy, Senior
Vice President – Finance and Chief Financial Officer ($475,748); J.G. Morikis, President, Paint
Stores Group ($448,526); L.E. Stellato, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary ($384,514);
and Conway G. Ivy, Senior Vice President — Corporate Planning and Development ($352,404).



     Annual Incentive Compensation to Be Earned in 2005. The Compensation Committee also approved
the following minimum, target and maximum cash bonus award levels, as a percent of salary, for the
named executive officers for 2006 under The Sherwin-Williams Company Management Incentive Plan
based upon each such executive officer achieving 75%, 100% and 125%, respectively, of their
individual performance goals. The Management Incentive Plan is part of The Sherwin-Williams
Company Management Compensation Program.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Incentive Award as a Percentage of Base Salary
	Named Executive Officer	 	Minimum	 	Target	 	Maximum
	C.M. Connor
	 	40	 	95	 	165
	S.P. Hennessy
	 	40	 	75	 	135
	J.G. Morikis
	 	40	 	75	 	135
	L.E. Stellato
	 	30	 	60	 	95
	C.G. Ivy
	 	30	 	60	 	95






     The Compensation Committee also approved a threshold company earnings goal and individual
performance goals for the named executive officers under the Management Incentive Plan for 2006.
Individual performance goals for Messrs. Connor and Hennessy relate to consolidated net sales,
diluted earnings per share, after tax return on shareholders’ equity, free cash flow, working
capital as a percent of sales and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.
Mr. Morikis has individual performance goals related to sales, profit, return on sales, return on
net assets employed, and new store openings. Mr. Stellato’s individual performance goals relate to
consolidated net sales, diluted earnings per share, budget achievement and various legal matters.
Mr. Ivy’s individual performance goals relate to consolidated net sales, diluted earnings per
share, business development transition matters and acquisition analysis and planning.
#### EVERIDGE et al. v. SHEPHERD et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 22, 1953.

S. M. Ward, Hazard, for appellant.

Fred K. Cope, Hazard, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from herein was rendered at the September, 1952, term of the Perry Circuit Court, and the appeal, therefore, comes within the purview of KRS 21.080 as amended by Chapter 24 of the Acts of 1952.

We have examined the record and considered the briefs of counsel, and find that the case involves real estate of less than $2,500 in value and that the evidence supports the judgment of the chancellor.

The motion for an appeal is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 13, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 13, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21D0072. CYNTHIA E. DEAN v. JOHN CAREY DEAN.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

18A07351
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3286 

To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse States that use State 

funds to operate National Parks during the Federal Government shutdown, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 11, 2013 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. TIPTON, Mr. 

CRAMER, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. STEWART, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. COOK, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. 

WESTMORELAND, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. 

MATHESON, Mr. SMITH of Missouri, and Mr. LAMBORN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse States 

that use State funds to operate National Parks during 

the Federal Government shutdown, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting States, 

5 Opening National Parks Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3286 IH

1 SEC. 2. REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS TO STATES TO OPEN 

2 NATIONAL PARKS TO THE PUBLIC. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after 

4 funds are made available, the Secretary of the Treasury, 

5 using funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 

6 and out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, 

7 and funds, for the several departments, agencies, corpora8 tions, and other organizational units of government for the 

9 fiscal year 2014, shall reimburse any State for activities 

10 described in subsection (b). 

11 (b) ACTIVITIES ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT.— 

12 The Secretary of the Treasury shall reimburse States 

13 under subsection (a) for State funds expended for activi14 ties that meet all of the following criteria: 

15 (1) The activity was conducted in fiscal year 

16 2014 during a time when the Federal Government 

17 was not conducting that activity due to the partial 

18 shutdown of the Federal Government. 

19 (2) The activity was necessary to operate and 

20 open to the public a National Park located, in whole 

21 or in part, within the State. 

22 (3) The activity was authorized under Federal 

23 law. 

24 (4) The activity was conducted in a manner and 

25 at a level not substantially greater in scope or cost 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3286 IH

1 than how the activity would have been conducted by 

2 the Federal Government. 

3 (5) The activity is not a settlement of or de4 fense against a claim of liability on the part of the 

5 State. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS