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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. 50-298] 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Nebraska Public Power District (the licensee) to withdraw its June 15, 1999, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-46 for the Cooper Nuclear Station located in Nemaha County, Nebraska.

The proposed amendment would have revised the facility updated safety analysis report on the containment overpressure contribution to emergency core cooling system pump net positive suction head requirement post-loss-of-coolant accident.

                    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 14, 1999 (64 FR 38031). However, by letter dated June 14, 2000, the licensee withdrew the proposed change.                

For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated June 15, 1999, and the licensee's letter dated June 14, 2000 (Accession No. ML003724841), which withdrew the application for license amendment. The above documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the Adams Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of October 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Mohan C. Thadani,

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00-27177 Filed 10-20-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### LUTZ v. STATE.

No. 22558.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 16, 1943.

D. C. Bennett, of Orange,. and i D. E.'„ O’Fiel, of Beaumont, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s.,Atty.,..of Aus- - tin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This purports to be an- appeal from a conviction for unlawfully- carrying. a_ pistol, , *343with punishment assessed at a fine of $100 by a jury’s verdict.

The record contains no final judgment, notwithstanding which a notice of appeal to this court was given and the record duly forwarded. After said notice of appeal had been given and the record so filed, the trial court attempted to enter a judgment in the case by a nunc pro tunc order to that effect. The notice of appeal deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to enter the nunc pro tunc order, and it is, therefore, of no effect. Art. 828, C.C.P.; Estes v. State, 38 Tex.Cr.R. 506, 43 S.W. 982; Robison v. State, 68 Tex.Cr.R. 115, 150 S.W. 912; Cockrell v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 525, 228 S.W. 1097; Williams v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 124, 92 S.W.2d 1036; Navarro v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 196, 147 S.W.2d 1081; LeBove v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 172 S.W.2d 342, this day decided.

The absence of a final judgment in the case renders this court without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May

7 , 2020.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00220

- CV

IN RE FILA

- MAR ENERGY SERVICES, LLC , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 165th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018

- 90836



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 18, 2020, relator Fila

- Mar Energy Services, LLC filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( Supp. ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Ursula A. Hall , presiding judge of the 165th District Court of Harris County , to : (1) vacate her February 10, 2020 order denying relator’s motion to dismiss for f

orum non conveniens and (2) grant such motion

.2

Because r elator has not shown it is entitled to mandamus relief , we deny its petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.
EXHIBIT
10(xiii)(b)

AMENDMENT TO
THE STANLEY WORKS
2001
LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

The Stanley Works (the
‘‘Company’’) has adopted this amendment to
The Stanley Works 2001 Long-Term Incentive Plan effective as of
December  13,  2005.

The first sentence of Section
9(a) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as
follows:

‘‘(a)   Upon the
occurrence of a Change in Control (as hereinafter defined), unless
otherwise determined by the Committee and set forth in an Award
Agreement,’’

THE STANLEY
WORKS


		By:______________________





		Its:______________________
#### BENTLEY v. STATE.

No. 24026.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 28, 1948.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, ■ for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty to the offense of burglary, appellant was assessed a punishment of five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

No bills of exception or statement of facts accompany the record. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         November 14-15, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Swissotel Washington, The Watergate, 2650 Virginia Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20037.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Gerald L McLaughlin, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID, NIH, Room 2217, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7610, Bethesda, MD 20892-7610, 301-496-2550, gm145a@nih.gov.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 18, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-27884  Filed 10-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       8,300,622
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,351,222
<ALLOWANCES>                                   142,549
<INVENTORY>                                 19,773,837
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,659,104
<PP&E>                                       4,921,698
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,549,767
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,533,923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,719,568
<BONDS>                                     11,291,183
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,259
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,788,006
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,533,923
<SALES>                                     26,877,396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,265,698
<CGS>                                       10,345,268
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,345,268
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,672,606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                41,112
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             719,246
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,247,824
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,411,661
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,836,163
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,836,163
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07
        

</TABLE>
May 12, 2005


Mr. Alan I. Goldberg
Marlton Technologies, Inc.
2828 Charter Road
Philadelphia, PA 19154

Re:  Employment Agreement dated December 11, 1992, as amended

Dear Alan:

      Confirming the actions of the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of Marlton Technologies, Inc. ("Company"):

      Effective January 1, 2005 and in accordance with the terms of your
Employment Agreement, your annual base salary was changed to $184,481 for your
employment on a thirty hour per week basis.

      Your Employment Agreement entitlement to future annual salary increases of
3% will be eliminated, and your salary will be reviewed annually by the Company
to consider future increases in your salary, consistent with the Company's
general consideration for senior level executives of the Company.

      Effective January 1, 2005, your existing bonus plan will be replaced with
a bonus plan to be determined annually by the Company, consistent with the
Company's general consideration for senior level executives of the Company.

      As described in Note 7 of the Item 11 Summary Compensation Table included
in the Company's Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, you
have waived your rights to the salary reductions described in Notes 2, 3 and 6
of such Table.

      The Company shall provide you with reimbursement of life and disability
insurance premiums of up to $9,500 per year.

      You have waived the requirement under your Employment Agreement that the
Company and its Board of Directors use their best efforts to cause you to be
elected and re-elected to the Company's Board of Directors, as long as the
Company provides you with Board observer rights allowing you to receive notice
and all materials for Board meetings as provided to Board members and the right
to attend Board meetings without voting rights.

      The provisions of your Employment Agreement relating to the above subject
matter are superseded by this amendment; otherwise the Employment Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms and shall
constitute the legal, valid and binding agreement of the Company.


                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Richard Vague
                                       Chairman of Compensation Committee

Agreed this _____ day of May, 2005.


----------------------------------
         Alan I. Goldberg
#### BUSTER v. KINDRICK et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 12, 1951.

*625Duncan & Duncan, Monticello, for appellant.

J. M. Kennedy, Monticello, for appellees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

Appellant brought this action to recover on a promissory note and to foreclose a mortgage lien. The Court submitted to a jury the question of whether or not the terms of the mortgage contract had been orally changed. The jury found for ap-pellees, and appellant’s petition was dismissed.

This appeal brings before us only the question of whether or not the pleadings support the judgment. The original transcript of record contains appellees’ Answer, which alleges an oral agreement was entered into contemporaneously with the signing of the note and mortgage, varying the terms thereof. Evidence of such contemporaneous agreement would be incompetent and, therefore, this Answer did not plead a valid defense.

Appellees, however, have filed an additional transcript containing a different Answer, which pleaded that the verbal agreement changing the contract terms was entered into six or eight weeks *after*the original note and mortgage were signed. Considering the affidavit of the Judge who tried the case and that of his clerk, and the principal instruction given to the jury, it is evident the only issue tried was the one raised by this Answer. We have, therefore, sustained appellees’ motion to strike the Answer appearing in the original transcript of record and to permit the filing of the one brought here by appellees.

In our opinion the Answer actually filed by appellees in this action alleged a valid defense to the suit, and as the only question before us is whether or not the pleadings support the judgment, it is our conclusion that they do so.

The judgment is affirmed.
In Of: 

PROFESSIONAL 

SERVED: July 14, 2016 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

HEARINGS 

DC 

Docket No. FAA-2015,.0638 

TRANSPORT, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 201480190149 

Respondent 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

October 1, 201 a u"'•'·'"'"':. Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed. 

Among other things, this Order set a Telephone Motion Conference/Pre-Hearing Status 

for 201 

On July 13, 2016, the'-' ....... ,.,.., attorney 

"~"'""'"'"""' the hearing. 

("OH") e-mailed parties 

... ....._ .... u, .... the Court's to counsel informed OH 

the parties had settled the matter 

hearing with the Hearing ._,v . ..,,,....., 

the Respondent had filed a withdrawal of 

Court. 

Later that same day, July.1 2016, the OH retrieved from Federal~~-.. ~-· 

Management System a copy of the Respondent's Waiver of Hearing. 

for 

After having reviewed the case file, 

stal:ute·s, regulations, and authority, and 

pleadings and """'.""'"'" all relevant caselaw, 

fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Pre-Hearing Status Conference set for August 11, 2016, is cancelled 

to 14 § 1 15, the Respondent has withdrawn Request 

and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Judge 
0001 

U.S. Mail. For service in person or by exc1ed11ted 

ActmirustJ:at1i:m 600 Wilbur
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-50838 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. DANA HUDGINS, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-156-2
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Dana Hudgins has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Ca l if o r n i a , 386 U

. S

. 7 3 8 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hudgins has not filed a response. We have reviewed c o u n s e l ’ s brief and the relevant portio n s o f the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r l e ave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 16 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-50838 Document: 00512021418 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2012No. 11-50838

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R . R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-50838 Document: 00512021418 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2012
Note to File: Sulfometuron methyl Registration Review Docket

On September 26, 2012 representatives of DuPont met with members of EPA’s Office of Pesticide 

Program to discuss the upcoming registration review of sulfometuron methyl (i.e., a Focus Meeting). 

Topics discussed included anticipated data requirements, and general use patterns of sulfometuron 

methyl. Members of EPA inquired about data that would characterize annual usage of sulfometuron 

methyl for various registered uses. Individuals in attendance are listed below, and also on the Focus 

Meeting sign-in sheet (also found in the sulfometuron methyl registration review public docket).

Name Affiliation Name Affiliation

Rusty Wasem EPA Jake Vukich DuPont

Wade Britton EPA Dan Zapotok DuPont

Jihad Aldadek EPA Craig Alford DuPont

Sumil Ratnayake EPA Jack Caine DuPont

Steve Jarbo EPA

Mindy Ondish EPA

Mah Shamim EPA

Tom Moriarty EPA

Neil Anderson EPA

Allen Vaughan EPA

Michael Barrett EPA

Steven Smearman EPA

Joehn Liccione EPA

Peter Savoia EPA
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6206-6207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2783]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Intent To File Application for New License

February 2, 2000.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File Applications for New 
License
    b. Project No.: 2233
    c. Date Filed: December 21, 1999.
    d. Applicants: Portland General Electric Company, current licensee.
    e. Name of Project: Willamette Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Willamette River in Clackamas County, Oregon.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 15 of the Federal Power Act, 18 CFR 
16.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Contact: Julie A. Keil, Director of Hydro Licensing and Water 
Rights, Portland General Electric Company, 121 SW Salmon Street, 
Portland, OR 97204.
    i. Expiration date of original license: December 31, 2004.
    j. The project consists of the T.W. Sullivan Development on the 
west side of the Willamette Falls near the City of

[[Page 6207]]

West Linn with a total installed capacity of 16 MW, and the Smurfit 
Development on the east side of the Willamette Falls near Oregon City 
with a total installed capacity of 1.5 MW.
    k. FERC contact: Hector M. Perez, (202) 219-2843.
    l. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.9(b)(1) each application for a new license 
and any competing license applications must be filed with the 
Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing 
license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by 
December 31, 2002.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-2783 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Frank, McClanahan and Senior Judge Willis 

ARRIBA CORPORATION AND 

 PMA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 3048-06-2 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 17, 2007 

CHARLES V. HAMILTON 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Kevin W. Cloe; Angela F. Gibbs; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on 

brief), for appellants. 

 (Ralph Rabinowitz; Rabinowitz, Swartz, Taliaferro, Swartz & 

Goodove, P.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 Arriba Corporation appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission 

finding that it failed to prove that Charles V. Hamilton was fully capable of returning to his 

pre-injury work on November 28, 2005. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s 

opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the commission in its final opinion. See Hamilton v. Arriba Corp., VWC File No. 214-89-29 

(Nov. 8, 2006). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
May29. 

FR: Ouardipee ED. S. 

Superintendent 

RE: AIR EXCURSIONS 

P.O. Box450 

Kake, Alaska 998JO 

(907) 785-3 741 

I 

()"" 

TJ 

On May 2012 Kake School Board met and approved this letter of support Air 

Excursions to be tbc Essential Air Service .fur Kake City School District and are in full support 

oftbeir continued presence in Kake as onr air carrier service provider. 

They agreed to Air Excursions for having excellent customer relations and support these 

two for the van/ground transportation here in Kake, and tbey like the 

avaHabiUty of looal owners and operators. can help with anything further please let ns 

know, 

Respectfully, 

Kake City School Board members 

Kake City Sohoo/ District Is an Equal Opportunity Employer
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Morgan, Appellee.

(No. 27965

Decided January 31, 1940.)

*Mr. G. B. Immel,*prosecuting attorney, for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Day, Zimmerman, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

Weygandt, C. J., and Williams, J., dissent.