alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 More specifically, the district court held that, even if the defendant's decision was based in part on the appellants' ages, the same decision would have been made in the absence of such discrimination for the two reasons stated in the text. Robert P. DILLA, Hale P. Lane, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. Togo D. WEST, Jr., Secretary, Department of the Army, Defendant-Appellee. No. 98-6457. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 8, 1999. Appeal from the United States Distri ct Court for the Middle District of Alabama. (No. CV-97-T-1003-N), Myron H. Thompson, Judge. Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The appellants—Robert Dilla, Hale Lane, and Dennis Eason—applied for an air traffic controller position with the United States Army. All three were rej ected in favor of a substantially younger applicant, Kevin Nolan. Subsequently, the appellants filed suit ag ainst the Secretary of the Army in federal district court, alleging that the Army's refusal to hire them was based on age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1994). After a bench trial, the district court found that the appellants were rejected because (1 ) they would be eligible to retire much sooner than Nolan and (2) they had achieved a higher pay grade than Nolan in previous employment, and therefore would require a higher salary than Nolan in the air traffic controller position. 1 See Dilla v. West, 4 F.Supp.2d 1130, 1141-44 (M.D.Ala.1998), corrected by31 F.Supp.2d 1347 (M.D.Ala.1999). Both of these factors are directly correlated with age—older workers are generally (but not necessarily) closer to meeting federal retirement criteria and further advanced in their pay grade than younger workers. The district court, however, relying

on Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993), concluded that "the

### 2 mere fact that there exists a perfect correlation, or ev en a direct link, between age and the factor purportedly relied upon by the employer does not perforce mean that the employer has impermissibly relied on age." Dilla, 4 F.Supp.2d at 1142-43. Consequently, the dist rict court ruled in favor of the defendant. We agree with the district court's analysis of Hazen Paper: Reliance on factors correlated with age does not by itself constitute age discrimination. To be sure, purported reliance on such factors may be a pretext for discrimination; if so, the defendant has violated the ADEA. See id. at 1142. The district court, however, concluded on the basis of substantial evidence that no such pretext was involved in this case. The district court's judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
Ronnie Trey ATMORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3686

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See* §§ 775.082(9)(a)(3)(d), .084(4)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (2014); *Martin v. State*, 888 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

KHOUZAM, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### Hays *v.*McGuirt.

4-2754

Opinion delivered December 19, 1932.

*705*McElhannon*.& *Callaway,*for appellant.

*J. H. Loohadoo*and *Bush*.& *Bush,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). It is insisted that the court erred in instructing the jury that if they found “that there was no valuable consideration moving to the plaintiff from the defendant for the execution of the release,” it should be disregarded. This instruction was erroneous, misleading and prejudicial. It cannot be said there was no valuable consideration for the execution of the release, whether it was moving to the plaintiff from the defendant or not. The testimony on appellant’s part conduced to show that the plaintiff herself received no consideration for the execution of said release, although she virtually admitted or at least did not deny that the things agreed to be done by the defendant in the release had all been done. The consideration could be a valuable one, whether it moved to her or not, as it *706might be of benefit to the party promising or a loss or detriment to the party to whom the promise was made; it does not have to he both; it may be either. The court said in *Phoenix Sidewalk Co.*v. *Russellville Water*& *Light Co.,*101 Ark. 22, 140 S. W. 996, “that a consideration was a benefit moving to the promisor or a detriment agreed to be suffered by the promisee. ’ ’ The consideration does not have to move to the party promising, but may move from a promisor to a third person.

■ “As has been noted, the consideration need not move to the mortgagor. Hence the debt may be the debt of another and the consideration, for example, may consist in a loan to a third person, or a satisfaction of a debt due the mortgagee from a third person or. in the release of a mortgage of a third person, or forbearance or extension to a third person debtor.” 41 C. J. 387. See also 13 C. J. 324-25; *Jonesboro Hardware Co.*v. *Western Tie*& *Timber Co.,*134 Ark. 543, 204 S. W. 418; *Rockafellow*v. *Peay,*40 Ark. 69; *Reynolds*v. *Winship,*175 Ark. 352, 299 S. W. 16; *Margruder*v. *State Bank,*18 Ark. 9.

The compromise of a disputed claim furnishes sufficient consideration to uphold a settlement, even though the asserted claim is without merit. *Gerdner*v. *Ward,*99 Ark. 588, 138 S. W. 981; *Lee*v. *Swilling,*68 Ark. 82, 56 S. W. 447; *Texas Co.*v. *Williams,*178 Ark. 1110, 13 S. W. (2d) 309.

The release purported to be in settlement of all claims between the parties, and, as already said, the testimony tended strongly to show its terms were performed by the parties to the release.

It follows from what we have said that the court erred in giving the instruction complained about, and it was apparent from the testimony introduced that the erroneous instruction was prejudicial, and the judgment must be reversed on account of same. Under this view it is unnecessary to determine whether the verdict is excessive. For the error designated the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. It is so ordered.

Mehafey, J., dissents.
# Suicide and COVID-19: How Navy Region Southeast is fighting back

## From Navy Region Southeast Public Affairs 

According to a Center for Disease Control study in June 2020, over 40 percent of adults struggled with mental health or substance abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic, and nearly 11 percent had contemplated suicide within the 30 days preceding the study.  That number was significantly higher among respondents between 18-24 years old.

Scientists and mental health care providers have warned that living through a global pandemic could adversely affect the mental health of individuals, including young Sailors and family members.  With this in mind, Navy Region Southeast worked with LivingWorks Start to offer a free online suicide awareness course to military personnel, family members, and DoD civilian employees.  The free 90-minute online program provides personalized information about suicide prevention and the meaningful actions someone can take to help keep others safe.

“We recognized that the many stressors and pro-longed periods of isolation brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic can lead someone to experience thoughts of suicide,” said Lt. Larry Jones, a LivingWorks Program Manager and Navy Region Southeast chaplain.  “This program offers hope by offering suicide prevention and awareness skills via an online platform.   The sessions allow suicide prevention and awareness training to continue without having to meet in person.’

The LW Start program can be accessed through any computer, smartphone or tablet while people continue to telework and social distance away from the workplace.  Additionally, the program incorporates simulations and interactive content that customizes the experience for each user making it a more focused experience depending on each person’s background, location, and needs.

“Anyone can have suicidal thoughts at anytime.  It is important that leaders, supervisors, co-workers and parents have the resources available if the behaviors of those close to you become concerning,” said Rear Adm. Gary Mayes, Commander, Navy Region Southeast.  “This new program is all about ensuring we are armed with the capabilities to help our shipmates and family when they are most vulnerable.”

Jones emphasizes that there is a significant need to increase awareness and enhance skills within the Region Southeast team as suicide prevention is a community effort.

“The more people trained in suicide prevention and awareness skills creates an environment where people feel safe to speak about their troubles and reach out for help,” he said.  “The LivingWorks program affords parents, teachers, department heads and fellow Sailors an opportunity to learn and become part of a suicide safer community.”

The program is available to all military and family members above the age of 13, and DoD civilian employees at any installation within Navy Region Southeast.

To register for the training, participants are encouraged to contact Jones at larry.l.jones4@navy.mil or call 904-542-5645. Please include the email you wish to use for accessing the training with any request.
Yvon ST JUSTE, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1328

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 18, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's order dated August 22, 2017, and with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and LUCK, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 12/31/98 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,009
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,749
<ALLOWANCES>                                       360
<INVENTORY>                                      7,104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,202
<PP&E>                                          49,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,987
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,119
<BONDS>                                         16,630
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,874
<SALES>                                         97,318
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,318
<CGS>                                           83,088
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,088
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,101)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (661)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,440)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,710)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (233)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,383)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.19)
        


</TABLE>
ADDENDUM (Example)

PAT COLLINS, Brigadier General (ARNG/ANG) 

ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: NGB–SL–23–001 

NATURE, SCOPE, AND EXTENT OF RESPONSIBILITIES:

G-3/5/7/9 for an operational three-star headquarters and the only US field

Army, supporting US Forces Korea, Combined Forces Command, and United

Nations Command, with the mission to maintain readiness, deter aggression,

and conduct NEO, RSOI, and offensive combat operations if deterrence fails.

Assume duties as CJ3 for a CJTF upon declaration of hostilities. Provide

operational guidance, force management and training support to a heavy

infantry division, an expeditionary sustainment command, five separate

brigades, and fifteen other units and activities. Supervise and lead a staff of

over 500 officers, NCOs, US and Korean civilians.

NATURE, SCOPE, AND EXTENT OF RESPONSIBILITIES:

Senior Vice President for a luxury travel trailer company. Has overall 

responsibility for design, construction, and marketing of a line of luxury travel 

trailers sold throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Supervises a 

staff of ten vice presidents. Responsible for 1,200 employees at thirteen 

worldwide locations. Annual operating budget for 2022 is more than $29 

million. Position requires intercontinental travel to customer locations. 

Include a paragraph for each relevant military/civilian position or board/

committee involvement at the national level that provides additional 

information and qualifying experience. 

Addendum is limited to one page. 

Pitch should be no smaller than 10. Margins should be no less than 1”. 

___________________________________ _____________ 

Nominated officer’s signature Date
Exhibit 10.4(c)






Exhibit 10.4(c)




VWR INTERNATIONAL, LLC

1310 Goshen Parkway

PO Box 2656

West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380




February 10, 2009




John Ballbach

415 Boxwood Road

Bryn Mawr, PA 19010




RE: Second Amendment to Employment Agreement




Dear John:



In order to ensure compliance with final regulations under §409A of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the “Code”), the terms of your employment agreement dated June 29, 2007, are
hereby revised as follows (which revisions are in addition to the revisions made effective as of
December 18, 2008 in order to comply with §409A of the Code):



The section entitled “Legal Fees” is revised to read as follows:




	 	Legal Fees: 	 	In the event of a contest between you and VWR or its subsidiaries or
affiliates during your lifetime regarding a breach or alleged breach of this Agreement,
VWR agrees to pay (within ten business days of receipt of an invoice from you) all
reasonable legal fees and expenses that you have incurred as a result of such contest;
provided, however, that if you do not substantially prevail in such contest, you agree
to reimburse VWR for any such payments, and VWR shall make no further payments under
this paragraph. The amount of expenses eligible for reimbursement under this paragraph
during any taxable year shall not affected the expenses eligible for reimbursement in
any other taxable year.





If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (312) 895-1250.




Sincerely,




/s/
Timothy P. Sullivan                     
                         
Timothy P. Sullivan



Accepted and Agreed:



	 	 	 
	/s/ John Ballbach
	 

John Ballbach

	 	 






Date: 2/10/09
June 28, 2011 

Mary T. Smith, Director 

Engineering and Analysis Division 

Office of Water 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. (4303T) 

Washington, DC 20460 

Via email to: smith.maryt@epa.gov

Dear Dr. Smith: 

I am writing this letter as a follow up to the September 2010 request by ASTM International’s Committee D19 on Water that 

ASTM Standard D7575 Standard Test Method for Solvent-Free Membrane Recoverable Oil and Grease by Infrared 

Determination be proposed in the upcoming USEPA Method Update Rule (MUR). Committee D19 is one of over 140 ASTM 

technical committees composed of more than 300 technical experts who represent producer, user, consumer, government 

and academic stakeholder interests in the development on voluntary consensus standards for materials, products, systems 

and services. Committee D19 adheres to well-regarded, industry-recognized, and time-tested principles for the open and 

transparent development of consensus standards that reflect current technology and industry practice. D7575 was approved 

though this ASTM consensus process on January 1, 2010. 

It was recently brought to our attention that the USEPA requested additional information about the suitability of this standard 

for the upcoming MUR from the initial proponents of this method, Orono Spectral Solutions, Inc. (OSS), before proposing for 

public comment. At the June meeting of Committee D19 in Anaheim, OSS informed ASTM Subcommittee D19.06, the group 

responsible for the development of D7575, of the EPA’s request for additional information concerning the ASTM Standard. 

Subcommittee D19.06 formed a task group to work with the EPA to answer any questions. 

Attached, please find supplemental information developed by the D19.06 Task Group in response to the EPA questions that 

were provided to OSS and then forwarded to the ASTM Subcommittee. This information has been reviewed and approved 

for distribution by the attendees of a virtual meeting on June 27th of Subcommittee D19.06 and the D19 Executive 

Subcommittee. If you have any additional questions or need further clarification, you can work with Len Morrissey, D19 

Manager (610-832-9719 or lmorriss@astm.org), and he will be glad to coordinate directly with the ASTM Committee. 

I understand that a meeting has been called to address these and other questions to determine the suitability of D7575 for 

inclusion in the upcoming MUR at EPA Headquarters on June 30, 2011. ASTM and the Committee D19 membership 

appreciates the opportunity to continue the dialogue on the applicability of this standard for use by the EPA and we look 

forward to continuing our longstanding relationship with the agency to develop and utilize voluntary standards to protect 

health and safety. 

If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please contact me at 610-832-9598 or 

jthomas@astm.org. 

Sincerely, 

James A. Thomas 

cc: Denis Borum, USEPA Congressional Liaison Specialist 

Mary McKiel, USEPA Standards Executive 

 Dean Smith, D19.06 Task Group Chairman 

 Robert Joyce, D19.06 Subcommittee Chairman 

Len Morrissey, D19 Manager
#### Siloam Lodge No 35 of the Free and Accepted Masons of Michigan v Heskett,

No. 90470;

Court of Appeals No. 109824.

Levin, J.

I would grant leave to appeal.

*873Reconsideration granted in part December 20, 1991, to provide that the motion for disclosure of affiliation, disqualification, and remand is denied. In all other respects the motion for reconsideration is denied.

Levin, J.

I would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave to appeal.
Howard Leroy CARTER, III, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4681

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 09, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice. Petitioner is required to make an express and distinct demand for performance before mandamus will be considered. See Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Mark Willis MASON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2714

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Karl KERR, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3761

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

Karl Kerr, Jr., pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Toomer v. State*, 895 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) ; *Teart v. State*, 866 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ; *Sherwood v. State*, 745 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

KHOUZAM, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Support Documents for 

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on 

Premanufacture Notice (PMN) 

P-03-248 

EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0577 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 27
Index

A-001 Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report for 

PMN P-03-248 

A-002 Initial Review Engineering Report for 

 PMN P-03-248 

A-003 Initial Review Exposure Report for 

PMN P-03-248 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 27
A-001 

Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report

for PMN P-03-248 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 27
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 27
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 27
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 27
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 27
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 27
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 27
EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 27
EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 27
EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 27
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 27
A-002 

Initial Review Engineering Report

for PMN P-03-248 

EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 27
See changes in bold to water releases (made 2/11/03). 

DRAFT

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 03-0248 ENGINEER: Sahmel/CLH

PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER:

USE: 

OTHER USES:

MSDS: Yes Label: No

General Eqp.:

Plastic gloves/safety glasses/use with adequate

ventilation, especially where drum or tank wageons are

being opened

Respirator:

NIOSH-approved respirator if adequate ventilation can

not be provided at any time

Health Effects: May cause eye irritation

TLV/PEL (LVE or raw materials): Not established

CRSS:

Chemical Category:

VP: <1E-06 torr @25EC 

S-H2O: dispersible

MW: 432.65

Phys State: N

Consumer Use: No 

SAT (concerns):

Related cases: L02-0354 (same compound)

Ground Water: moderate

Health: 1-2 (inhalation only)

Eco: 3 (all releases to water)

PBT: P1B1T1

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 1 

PMN: 03-0248

ASSUMPTIONS:

EPA SANITIZED Page 15 of 27
POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW

EPA SANITIZED Page 16 of 27
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 3 

PMN: 03-0248

USE:

Site/Location:

Days/yr:

Process Description:

 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES:

: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 17 of 27
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 4 

LVE: 03-0248

USE: (continued)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE:

 Tot. # of workers: (submission)

 Days/yr: (submission)

Inhalation:

Number of w la

Basis:

Note: 

INHALATION MONITORING DATA REVIEW

1) Uncertainty (estimate based on model, regulatory limit

or data not specific to that industry. Yes

2) (a) Exposure Level > 1 mg/day Yes

Or

 (b) Hazard rating for health of 2 or greater No

Inhalation Monitoring Data Desired: Yes (Both criteria met)

Dermal: Not required, per SAT

EPA SANITIZED Page 18 of 27
(Telephone Log)

PMN: 03-0248

Call By: Chris Hibshman (Eastern Research Group for

EPA/OPPT/CEB)

Call To:

Submitter:

Date: 1/15/03

Time:

Q1:

A1:

Q2:

A2:

EPA SANITIZED Page 19 of 27
A-003 

Initial Review Exposure Report

for PMN P-03-248 

EPA SANITIZED Page 20 of 27
EPA SANITIZED Page 21 of 27
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 22 of 27
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 23 of 27
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 24 of 27
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 25 of 27
EPA SANITIZED Page 26 of 27
EPA SANITIZED Page 27 of 27