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



SYNALLOY CORPORATION

SUBSIDIARY AND DIVISIONAL MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN

INCENTIVE POOL

A separate incentive pool will be established for the 1998 and subsequent fiscal years for Synalloy's subsidiary and divisional management. The incentive pool will equal ten percent (10%) of the fiscal year's earnings before interest
and income taxes (EBIT) in excess of a return on capital. Return on capital will be an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of average equity at the beginning of each quarter of the fiscal year. Equity shall be determined by adding back intercompany debt and
environmental reserves to book equity. 

DESIGNATED PARTICIPANTS

Designated Participants in this Plan will be limited to officers and other key managers of the Company's subsidiaries and divisions who are designated by the Chief Executive Officer of Synalloy as employees who are responsible for and
significantly influence profits.

ALLOCATION OF INCENTIVE POOL

A maximum of thirty percent (30%) of the incentive pool may be distributed to employees who are not Designated Participants in this Plan at the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer of Synalloy. A minimum of sixty percent (60%) of
the incentive pool will be paid to Designated Participants pro rata to their salaries. A minimum of ten percent (10%) and a maximum of forty percent (40%) of the incentive pool may be paid to Designated Participants in any proportion as the Chief
Executive Officer of Synalloy deems appropriate.

TIME OF PAYMENT

Payments will be made as soon as practical after completion of the annual audit of financial statements for the fiscal year in which the incentive is earned.

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR RECEIPT OF ANY PAYMENT UNDER THIS PLAN



	Employed by the Company at the year-end for which the incentive is earned unless termination of employment results from death, disability or retirement in which case payment will be prorated to cover time worked
during the year. 


	Also employed at the time of payment unless termination of employment results from involuntary termination, retirement, disability or death between year-end and payment date.


	Designated participants must have entered into an agreement acceptable to the Chief Executive Officer of Synalloy under which they agree not to compete with the Company. for a minimum period of one year after the termination of
their employment.

DURATION OF PLAN

The Plan will remain in effect until modified or terminated by the Board of Directors of Synalloy. The Plan will not be changed for a fiscal year after the beginning of such year. Prior to the beginning of a fiscal year, the Board of
Directors of Synalloy may modify or cancel this Plan at their sole discretion.
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

I, Paul Quadros, Chief Financial Officer of GenStar Therapeutics (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordancewith 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

| (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: August 14, 2002 | /s/ Paul D. Quadros Paul D. Quadros  Chief Financial Officer |
|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
The Honorable Jim Turner U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-3217 Dear Congressman Turner: Thank you for your letter of June 9, 2000 concerning the possible regulation of concrete, its residuals or by-products as hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). First, in general, concrete products, when used for their normal purpose, are not regulated wastes under RCRA, which governs management of wastes. (The only exception to this would be concrete that was produced using hazardous waste as an ingredient.) Second, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has no plans to develop new regulations which would classi fy concrete residuals or by-products as hazardous wastes. We are currently evaluating how the existing RCRA regulations apply to the materials that you mention, particularly the concrete wash water from mixer trucks. This requires a careful consid eration of various aspects of our regulations and the implications for similar wastes. We are encouraged by the initial efforts of the concrete and cement industry to increase the reuse of concrete wash water as a substitute for fresh water. Also, as you point out, EPA and state agencies have worked closely with the industry on environmental training programs. We will continue our dialog with industry associations and representatives as well as other interested parties as we consider the applicability of RCRA to the specific ac tivities about which you are concerned. Thank you for your interest in this matter. If you have any questions, please have your staff contact Robert Maxey of my staff at 703-308-7273. Sincerely,

Elizabeth Cotsworth, Director Office of Solid Waste

RO 14451
#### Luetten and another, Appellants, vs. Burlington Silver Black Fox Farm and others, Respondents.

For the appellants: *E. J. Boyle*of Burlington and *Weis-man & Jorgensen*of Racine.

For the respondents: *Nettie E. Karcher*of Burlington, attorney, and *Whaley & Paulsen*of Racine of counsel.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7484-7485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02594]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Program project: Center for Integrative Biomedical Computing.
    Date: February 17-19, 2015.
    Time: 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Sheraton Salt Lake City, 150 West 500 South, Salt Lake, 
UT 84101.
    Contact Person: Marie-Jose Belanger, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scentific

[[Page 7485]]

Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 
5181, MSC, Bethesda, MD 20892, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#284a4d4449464f4d5a45684b5b5a06464140064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6d4d3dad7d8d1d3c4dbf6d5c5c498d8dfde98d1d9c0">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: February 4, 2015.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-02594 Filed 2-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
LOG OF MEETING

DIRECTORATE FOR ENGINEERING SCIENCES

SUBJECT: ASTM Bassinet Stability 

DATE OF MEETING: January 3, 2012

PLACE OF MEETING: Via Phone Conference

LOG ENTRY SOURCE: Patricia Edwards

COMMISSION ATTENDEES: Patricia Edwards

NON-COMMISSION ATTENDEES: Contact ASTM for attendee list

SUMMARY OF MEETING:

The removable bassinet bed stability requirement, as reviewed during the last 

ASTM meeting in October 2012, and proposed as part of the Commission’s NPR 

on bassinets/cradles was discussed. 

Comments were as follows: 

• Does the visual indicator option add any safety?

• The collapse/20 degree tilt requirements, could they contribute to the

unintended consequences of a child in the bassinet bed falling to the 

floor?

• 20 degrees – is that foot/toe or side to side? Foot/toe could mimic an 

inclined sleeper allowing consumers to think it is an intended use position. 

Ideas that were shared:

• Combine some of the requirements: the auto lock requirement with the 

collapse/20 degrees. In other words, the bassinet must auto lock on the 

stand or it falls off. Would bassinets then be designed so that consumers 

would be much less likely to drop or let go of the bassinet bed when 

placing it on the stand (A frame type of stand)?

• The goal is to have the bassinet in any foreseeable use position to be 

stable (i.e., pass the stability requirement), thus auto locks that are 

redundant features should be still allowed. 

• Clarify the requirement by focusing on the test procedure and how each 

requirement should be tested, leaving the requirements as broad as 

possible. 

• Increasing the 20 degrees to 30 to match other standards, and/or add a 

side to side condition to make it more obvious that it is not an intended 

use position. 

Draft wording will be pulled together by the task group chair and the 

subcommittee chair, so that the task group has a new starting point to work from. 

The comments and ideas expressed during the conference call will be shared 

with the rest of the subcommittee at the January 7, 2013 meeting.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40690

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HECTOR RIVERA-RIVERA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:10-CR-123-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hector Rivera-Rivera was convicted of illegal reentry and was sentenced

to 21 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. RiveraRivera now appeals, asserting that the written judgment contains a special

condition of supervised release that was not orally pronounced by the district

court at sentencing and arguing that this court should remand his case to the

district court with an order to conform the written judgment to the oral

pronouncement. The written special condition which he seeks to have stricken 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 27, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-40690 Document: 00511647605 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2011
No. 10-40690

provides, “Within 72 hours of being placed on supervised release or upon

completion of the custody sentence, the defendant shall surrender to a duly

authorized immigration official.” 

We are required to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte, if necessary. 

Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Bailey v.

Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that mootness must be

raised sua sponte). This case fails to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement

because there is no concrete and continuing injury to the appellant. See Spencer

v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). On July 29, 2011, Rivera-Rivera was released

from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, commenced his term of supervised

release, and was removed from the United States. The triggering time of the

requirement that Rivera-Rivera surrender to immigration officials, i.e., 72 hours

from his release from custody or his placement on supervised release, has

already transpired. Therefore, any argument relating to this special condition

is moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 382-83 (5th Cir.

2007). The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

2

Case: 10-40690 Document: 00511647605 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2011
Opinion issued May 11, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 7
- 00 0 9 1
- CV

——————————— C HRISTINE E. REULE , Appellant

V. SHERWOOD VALLEY I COUN CI L OF C O
- OWNERS, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1 0 879 52

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Christine E. Reule , representing that s he no longer wish es to pursue the appeal , ha s filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 42.1(a) (1) . No opinion has issued. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(c).2

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss all o ther pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Huddle, and Lloyd.
### CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT

LOCAL DISCHARGE LIMITS*

Effective 9/1/07



### Pollutant Discharge

Limitation** Limit Applies To:

Antimony (Sb) 5.0 All Industrial Users (IUs) Arsenic (As) 0.8 All IUs Cadmium (Cd) 0.3 All IUs Chromium (Cr(T)) 1.5 All IUs Copper (Cu) 0.9 Permitted IUs

0.04 Unpermitted IUs
Lead (Pb) 0.4 Permitted IUs

0.001 Unpermitted IUs Mercury (Hg) 0.003 Permitted IUs

0.0001 Unpermitted IUs
Nickel (Ni) 3.0 All IUs Selenium (Se) 0.3 All IUs Silver (Ag) 1.0 All IUs Zinc (Zn) 4.5 All IUs Cyanide (CN) 0.5 Permitted IUs

Prohibition Unpermitted IUs

Phenol 10.0 All IUs pH (Instantaneous limits) 5.5 – 11.5 units All IUs

Oil & Grease - Mineral 100 All IUs Oil & Grease - Animal & Vegetable 300 All IUs Total Toxic Organics (TTO) (see separate list) 2.10 All IUs

Special Limitations for Groundwater Remediation Projects*:
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene & Xylene (BTEX) 1.0 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) 10.0

* More stringent limits may apply for industries s ubject to National Categorical Pretreatment Standards. ** Expressed in mg/L unless otherwise noted. Limits are daily maximum limits unless otherwise specified.



### Pollutant Parameters with Alternative Control Strategies Pollutant Control Strategy

Chlorpyrifos Best Management Practices

Diazinon Best Management Practices

Dieldrin Discharge Prohibition Dioxin compounds Discharge Prohibition 4,4’-DDE Discharge Prohibition

PCBs Discharge Prohibition Perchloroethylene (PCE) from dry cleaning Discharge Prohibition Tributyltin Discharge Prohibition

The following parameters are established in Ge neral Discharge Prohibitions of Title 10: Radioactivity Refer to 10CFR20.2003 Closed-Cup Flashpoint (test method 40CFR Part 261.21) 140°F (60°C) Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) 2 successive readings single reading 5%

10% Temperature 150°F (65°C)
# C_2004208EN.01000101.xml

| 18.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 208/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 August 2004

(2004/C 208/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2338 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,45 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4356 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67130 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2324 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5370 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,42 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2810 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,57770 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,483 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 247,33 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6633 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4268 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4337 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 875 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,9900 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 40,190 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 804 000 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7211 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6109 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6235 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8553 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1175 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 428,31 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,0611 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2338

JPY

Japanese yen

136,45

DKK

Danish krone

7,4356

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67130

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2324

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5370

ISK

Iceland króna

87,42

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2810

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,57770

CZK

Czech koruna

31,483

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

247,33

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6633

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4268

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4337

ROL

Romanian leu

40 875

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,9900

SKK

Slovak koruna

40,190

TRL

Turkish lira

1 804 000

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7211

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6109

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6235

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8553

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1175

KRW

South Korean won

1 428,31

ZAR

South African rand

8,0611

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2004228EN.01000801.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/8

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-424/02: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 75/439/EEC - Disposal of waste oils - Priority to be given to the processing of waste oils by regeneration)

(2004/C 228/15)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-424/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: M. Bethell, assisted by M. Demetriou) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 23), as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986 (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43), requiring Member States to take the measures necessary to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (President of the Chamber), A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986, to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986, to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.

1

---
# C_2004262EN.01005401.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/54

---

Action brought on 9 August 2004 by Herta Adam against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-342/04)

(2004/C 262/99)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 August 2004 by Herta Adam, residing at Brussels, represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her application, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in that the period during which she worked in the office of the representation of a German Land in Brussels is not considered by the Commission as employment arising from services carried out for another State. The applicant also alleges infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

---