alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SERVEDMARC H 1,201 1 '•;^-/:RT^fNTp F U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N : J'^'>^;i^: ' iJOJ;!, ,

OFFIC E O FHEARING S ' ' ^ ' L '-•-'iJ S WASHINGTON , D C ^ IN TH E MATTE RO F CONTINENTA L AIRLINES , INC . FAA DOCKE T NO . CP10SW001 6 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No . FAA-201 0 - 107 3 NOTIC E O FHEARIN G DATE S NOTIC E I S HEREB Y GIVE N tha t testimon y an devidenc e wil l b e hear dan d considere do n Ma y 27,2011 , inclusive , i n th e U.S . Ta x Court , Roo m7006 , Case y U.S . Courthouse , 51 5 Rus k

Avenue , Houston , Texa s 77002 . Hearing s wil l commenc e at 9:0 0 a.m . an dconclud e at 4:3 0 p.m . eac h day . Th e partie s shoul dvacat e th e courthous e o n o r befor e 5:0 0 p.m . eac h day . Settle dcase s wil l no t

b e remove dfro mth e docke t unti l th e Judg e receive s th e prope r pleading(s ) ^ Pleading s ma y b e forwarde db y fax , expres s mail , courie r o r posta l service^ . S O ORDERED .

U.S . Administrativ e La w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

' Material s filedi n th e FA A Hearin g Docke t (excep t for material s filedi n security cases ) ar e als o availabl e fo r viewin g a t

http://www . regulations , sov . ^ Th e Administrator' s civi l penalt y decisions , alon g with indexe s o f th e decisions , th e Rule s o f Practice , a s wel l a s othe r

material s relatin g t o civi l penalty cases , ar e availabl e o n th e interne t at : http://wwwJaa.goWabout/officeorg/headquartersj3ffices/agc/polj3djudication/agc400/civil_penalty/ ; se e also : http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gcn>/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpI=/ecfrbrowse/Titlel4/14tab02.tpl . I n addition , Thomso n Reuters/Wes t Publishin g publishe s Federa l Aviatio n Decisions . Finally , th e decision s ar e availabl e throug h LEXI S (TRAN S library ) an dWestLa w 9FTRAN-FA A database) . Fo r additiona l information , se e th e We b site . 1

## sEiii<Bte T FA A Docke t No . CP10SW001 6 (Civil Penalt

y Action) ORIGIN ^ &ON E COP Y Federa l Aviation Administration 80 0 hidependenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , DC 2059 1 , Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Syit

e 2W1(W0 ' ON I COPY ThonoisT^ievvtonBoWing, Respondent' s Counse l Managin g Attorney , Regulator

y Afiair s Continenta l Airlines , Inc. , Responden

t 160 0 Smit h Street , 15 * Floor

HQSLG Houston , T

X 77002 TEL : 713-324-560 6 . „ FAX : 713-324-516 1 Ti mDuS , Complainant' s Counsel Attorney , Offic

e of Regiona l Counsel , ASW- 7 Southwest Region Federa l Aviation Administration 260 1 Meacha

mBlvd . Ft . Worth , T

X 7613 7 TE L 817-222-509 9 FA X 817-222-5945/509 2 Th e Honorable Richar

dC . Goodwin , Administrative La w Judg e U.S . Dq)artmen

t of Transportation Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Building , Groun

dFloor , Roo

mE12-320 Washington , DC 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Advisor

202

- 366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t 202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e in persfflf^lg? . Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e AvIniKiP

^ D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430. I use th e foUowiil g Building—SuttllW

i fsederi

d 

### m
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 800052

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### DEVIN A. PIERCE Private First Class ( E

- 2 ) , U

. S

. Marine Corps

Appellant

________________________ _ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Emily A. Jackson

- Hall, USMC

. Convening Authority: C ommand ing General, 2d Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, NC. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieuten ant Colonel Keith A. Parrella, USMC

. For Appellant : Lieutenant Commander Paul D. Jenkins, JAGC, USN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 2 2 Ma y 2018

_________________________ Before H UTCHISON , P RICE , and G ERDING , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).
For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6516

ROBERT LEWIS CAIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-97-342-3) Submitted: June 23, 1998 Decided: July 13, 1998 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lewis Cain, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Cain v. Angelone , CA-97-342-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 1998). We also deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. Inaddition, we deny Appellant’s petition for rehearing with a suggestion for rehearing in banc. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
*present*— Chancellors Rutledge, Hutson, and Mateevts.

#### Todd *vs.*Clarke.

case viji.

Reg. book, P- 43-

Decree for an cording* to the jujyDe °f

On reading the certificate from the justices of the Court of common pleas, ordered, that it be referred to the master to state and report the account between complain-a51+ an¿ defendant, charging complainant with the nett proceeds of the goods, sold by him for defendant, and charging the defendant with the value of the rum shipped to him by complainant, as found by the verdict on the issue at law, which was directed by the court,
PARTIES TO PREVIOUS FORM OF CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT

Steven K. Lumpkin
Robert T. Steinkamp
Harry B. Stroup
John A. Weber
### a G



# Life Cycle Cost Analysis James E. McMahon (JEMcMahon@LBL.gov) Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

U.S. DO E Workshop on Standards for Distribution Transformers November 1, 2000 11/01/00 1

### • Life cycle cost (LCC) analysis will consider

the tradeoff between increased purchase price and decreased operating expenses for more efficient designs compared to a baseline. • Total ownership cost (TOC) similarly accounts for purchase and operating costs.
• Payback period is another expression of this tradeoff. 11/01/00

### • INSTALLED OWNER COST: the price paid by the purchaser for a transformer - installation costs will be included if they differ with efficiency 

### • Possible data sources - survey of current or recent purchase prices - calculated =manufacturer costs plus markups (manufacturer, distributor, installer) 11/01/00 3

# ^zts: life Cycle Cost

r 

### • OPE^^ATING EXPENSE, - energy and maintenance costs (annually) - lifetime of the transformers (years) - discount rate for calculating present value of future operating expenses (e.g., 8% real) 

### • Possible approach and data sources - annual energy consumption based on loading - current and forecasted regional energy prices - gather and analyze data on lifetimes, discount rates 11/01/00 4

# d

• LCC = P + [O/(1+r)t] where + P =Installed owner cost + 0 =Annual operating expense + r =Discount rate + t = years (sum over transformer lifetime)

11/01/00 5

### • LCC savings:

• LCC @ efficiency level above baseline - LCC @baseline 

### • Analyze a range of possible efficiency improvements • Efficiency levels corresponding to reduced LCC (LCC savings) are generally considered further

11/01/00 6

## EXAMPLE: LCC Results

aseline, and 3 efficiency options Costs: fluorescent lamp ballasts (2F40 commercial)

Baseline Cathode Cutout q Electronic T12 q Electronic T8

Installed Annual energy Life cycle 11/01/00 7

## variability and UncertainC

• Objectives: - Analysis of variability among purchasers and operating conditions - Rigorous treatment of uncertainty 

### • Technical Approach: - Use distributions for each input, not point estimates - Commercial software - User access via Web, training 11/01/00 8

## EXAMPILE (ballasts):

I., CC savings with variatilit k' : 0,000 T ri als .184 _, I 1841

0 Mean = $6 ($150) ($75) $0 $75 $150

Certainty is 80.49% from $0 to +Infinity 11/01/00 9

# erpreting LCC -°sults

with van aG•iity R ESULTS

- Average LCC savings - Percent with net savings (or with net cost) 

### • Importance analysis

- identify key inputs that contribute most to uncertainty or variability

11/01/00 10
Q213 Exhibit 10.A - Director Cash Compensation






EXHIBIT-10.A


Skyworks Solutions, Inc. Cash Compensation Plan for Directors
(as of January 29, 2013)


Directors who are not employees of Skyworks Solutions, Inc. are paid an annual retainer of $55,000. Additional annual retainers are paid to the Chairman of the Board ($40,000); the Chairman of the Audit Committee ($20,000); the Chairman of the Compensation Committee ($15,000); and the Chairman of the Nominating and Governance Committee ($10,000). Additional annual retainers are also paid to directors who serve on committees in roles other than as Chairman as follows: Audit Committee ($10,000); Compensation Committee ($7,500); and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee ($5,000).  All retainers are paid in quarterly installments.  In addition, the Compensation Committee retains discretion to recommend to the full Board of Directors that additional cash payments be made to a non-employee director(s) for extraordinary service during a fiscal year.
MARYLAND ARMY NATIONAL GUARD (MDARNG) DRINKING 

WATER PFAS SNAPSHOT

The Army National Guard is committed to ensuring quality drinking water is provided to its 

Soldiers, and civilians. Proactive sampling is performed by the Army National Guard on its

drinking water systems, as well as, coordination with other purveyors to ensure perfluorooctane 

sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) remains below the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) lifetime health advisory (HA) level of 70 parts per trillion (ppt). The 

EPA HA is not an enforceable or a regulatory standard, and represents a concentration in 

drinking water that is not expected to produce adverse health effects if the water is consumed 

over a lifetime.

Drinking Water Status: Finished drinking water, which is the treated water people drink at 

Gunpowder Military Reservation, does not contain PFOS/PFOA above the EPA HA. 

Additionally, Army National Guard-provided drinking water complies with the standards of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), a federal law designed to protect the quality of drinking water 

supplied to the American public. The Army National Guard will continue to monitor on-base 

drinking water to ensure the EPA HA or a properly promulgated state drinking water standard is 

not exceeded.

Test Date: June 2022 

PFOA + PFOS Results: 4.4 ppt (J)i

Future Testing Event: June 2024

Type of Drinking Water System: Army National Guard-owned

For Questions Contact: Maryland National Guard State Public Affairs Office

Office Phone Number: 667-296-3662

Office E-mail Address: ng.md.mdarng.list.pao@army.mil

Water quality report: A water quality report is not required for this location 

i The reported result is an estimate. Values noted with a ‘J’ flag were detected by the laboratory but the true concentration is 

uncertain.
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Peter Sheu, certify that:  1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report (the Report) on Form 10-QSB of the small business issuer;  2.   Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;  3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;  4.   The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.   The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.  Date:May 15, 2007By:/s/Peter SheuPeter Sheu, CFO
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40938

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ADOLFO GARCIA-BADILLO, also known as Guillermo Quintero-Valli

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-852-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

TheFederal Public Defender appointed to represent Adolfo Garcia-Badillo

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Garcia-Badillo has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
Exhibit 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  filing  of  GSI  Technologies  USA  Inc.,  a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2003,
as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Gilles Addison, President and CEO of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350),
that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

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

Dated:  February 18, 2004




By:  /s/  Gilles Addison
_____________________________
Gilles  Addison
President  and  CEO


<PAGE>
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2959 

To provide that, due to the disruptions caused by COVID–19, applications 

for impact aid funding for fiscal year 2023 may use certain data submitted in the fiscal year 2022 application. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 7, 2021 

Mr. THUNE (for himself and Ms. SMITH) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To provide that, due to the disruptions caused by COVID– 

19, applications for impact aid funding for fiscal year 

2023 may use certain data submitted in the fiscal year 

2022 application. 

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 ‘‘Supplemental Impact 

5 Aid Flexibility Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IMPACT AID PROGRAM. 

7 Due to the public health emergency directly relating 

8 to COVID–19 and notwithstanding sections 7002(j) and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2959 IS

1 7003(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

2 of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7702(j), 7703(c)), a local educational 

3 agency desiring to receive a payment under section 7002 

4 or 7003 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7702, 7703) for fiscal 

5 year 2023 that also submitted an application for such pay6 ment for fiscal year 2022 shall, in the application sub7 mitted under section 7005 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7705) 

8 for fiscal year 2023— 

9 (1) with respect to a requested payment under 

10 section 7002 of such Act— 

11 (A) use the data described in section 

12 7002(j) of such Act relating to calculating such 

13 payment that was submitted by the local edu14 cational agency in the application for fiscal year 

15 2022; or 

16 (B) use the data relating to calculating 

17 such payment for the fiscal year required under 

18 section 7002(j) of such Act; and 

19 (2) with respect to a requested payment under 

20 section 7003 of such Act— 

21 (A) use the student count data relating to 

22 calculating such payment that was submitted by 

23 the local educational agency in the application 

24 for fiscal year 2022, provided that payments for 

25 fiscal year 2023 shall be calculated by the SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:37 Oct 08, 2021 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2959.IS S2959

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2959 IS

1 retary using the expenditures and rates de2 scribed in clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of sec3 tion 7003(b)(1)(C) of such Act that would oth4 erwise apply for fiscal year 2023; or 

5 (B) use the student count data relating to 

6 calculating such payment for the fiscal year re7 quired under section 7003(c) of such Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6349

ANTIONE A. WEST,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE

OF MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-97-2280-WMN)

Submitted: August 4, 1998 Decided: August 25, 1998

Before ERVIN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antione A. West, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Antione A. West seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See West v. Corcoran, No. CA-97-2280-

WMN (D. Md. Feb. 12, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
WYN-EX10.1_2013.3.31-Q1/A




Exhibit 10.1
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT, dated March 15, 2013 (“Amendment”), made to the Employment Agreement dated as of November 19, 2009, as first amended effective March 1, 2011 (together, the “Employment Agreement”), by and between Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Franz Hanning (the “Executive”).  Except as provided herein all terms and conditions set forth in the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have previously entered into the Employment Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the date first written above, the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 
1.The first sentence of Section IV.A. of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
For services rendered by the Executive pursuant to this Agreement during the Period of Employment, the Company will pay the Executive base salary at an annual rate equal to seven hundred fifteen thousand dollars ($715,000) or such greater amount as may be determined from time to time by the Company in its sole discretion (the “Base Salary”).
2.    The first sentence of Section IV.B. of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety and replaced with the following:
In addition, the Executive will be eligible to receive an annual incentive compensation award in respect of each fiscal year of the Company during the Period of Employment targeted to equal $800,000, effective January 1, 2013, subject to the terms and conditions of the annual bonus plan covering employees of the Company, and further subject to such performance goals, criteria or targets reasonably determined by the Company in its sole discretion in respect of each such fiscal year (each such annual bonus, an “Incentive Compensation Award”).
3.    Section VII.A.i. and Section VIII.C.iv. of the Employment Agreement are each hereby amended to replace the reference to “$700,000” with “$800,000”.
4.    From and after the date hereof, all references to the Employment Agreement shall mean the Employment Agreement as amended hereby. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and is hereby ratified and confirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Amendment to be executed this 15th day of March 2013.





	
		
	EXECUTIVE

	 
	/s/ Franz Hanning

	 
	Franz Hanning

	 
	 




	
		
	WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION

	By:
	/s/ Mary Falvey

	 
	Name: Mary Falvey

	 
	Title: Executive Vice President