alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Patricia Mitchell MARZETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; James Winbush, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and Melvin Middleton, individually and in his official capacity, Defendant.

No. 17-1321

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 28, 2017

Decided: September 8, 2017

Patricia Mitchell Marzett, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth J. Palmer, ROSEN, ROSEN & HAGOOD, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Patricia Mitchell Marzett appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Marzett v. Charleston Cty. Sch. Dist.,*No. 2:14-cv-03932-RMG, 2017 WL 589110 (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2017).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 To the extent Marzett argues that the Defendants denied her due process by declining her request for a hearing, because this claim was not raised in her complaint, it is not properly before us. See *Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc.,*562 F.3d 599, 617 (4th Cir. 2009) ("[A] plaintiff may not raise new claims after discovery has begun without amending [her] complaint.”). In addition, we reject Marzett's claim that the district court erred in not granting her additional discovery, because she failed to explain how the requested discovery would create a genuine issue of material fact and how she was prevented from obtaining it during the discovery window set by the magistrate judge. *See Pisano v. Strach,*743 F.3d 927, 931 (4th Cir. 2014).
Mark WYMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2296

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) - Information Collection Request (ICR) 

Change Worksheet 

1. Identification of the Information Collection

Title: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: 

Providing Option for Rescission of EPA-Issued Tailoring Rule Step 2 Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Permits

OMB control number: 2060-0003

2. Description of the Change in Requirements

In this rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to amend 

the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program 

regulations to allow for rescission of certain PSD permits issued by the EPA and delegated 

reviewing authorities under Step 2 of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule (Tailoring Rule). We are taking this action in order to 

provide a mechanism for the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind PSD permits 

that are no longer required in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Utility Air 

Regulatory Group v. EPA and the amended appeals court judgment in Coalition for Responsible 

Regulation v. EPA that vacated the Tailoring Rule. These decisions determined that Step 2 of the 

Tailoring Rule was not required under the CAA and vacated the EPA regulations implementing 

Step 2. When effective, this action will authorize the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to 

rescind Step 2 PSD permits in response to requests from applicants who can demonstrate that 

they are eligible for permit rescission.

3. Description of the Burden

EPA estimates that about 20 permittees with Step 2 permits issued by EPA or delegated permit 

reviewing authorities would request this relief. Sources requesting Step 2 permit rescissions will 

have completed the permit application process, which on average had an annual burden of 1,006 

hours, but until the permit is rescinded the sources remain subject to any monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements imposed by the permit.

Sources that request a Step 2 PSD permit rescission, will have to demonstrate to the applicable 

permit reviewing authorities that they hold a Step 2 permit, which should be evident from the 

material submitted during the permitting process. Any incidental burden from this demonstration 

will be more than offset by the burden reduction from the rescission, which will relieve the 

source of ongoing obligations under the permit. In addition, under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(1) a request 

to rescind a Step 2 PSD permit would qualify as a certification that is not considered to be 

“information” as defined by the PRA.
Jose ESCOBAR and Iris Escobar, Appellants, v. NEW HAMPTON AT CENTURY VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM #IV ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3316

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 23, 2018]

Joseph M. Pustizzi of Law Office of Joseph Pustizzi, P.A., Hollywood, for appellants.

Shelley J. Murray of Straley & Otto, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Affirmed. *See**Tubbs v. Mechanik Nuccio Hearne & Wester, P.A.* , 125 So.3d 1034, 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (where court wrote that "courts must look to the substance of litigation outcomes-not just procedural maneuvers-in determining the issue of which party has prevailed in an action"); *Padow v. Knollwood Club Ass'n* , 839 So.2d 744, 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Warner, Gross and Taylor, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

I, Gary C. Parks, Chief Financial Officer certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Immtech International,
Inc.;

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our 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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  February 9, 2005

/s/ Gary C. Parks
--------------------------
   Gary C. Parks
   Chief Financial Officer
# Catalyst Preparation Batch Process

Key:

CP Closed Process

BP Batch Process

AT Automatic Transfer

RP Product Release Point

Component 1

Component 2

Component 3

Component 4

Stage 1

Reactor

BP

CP

Stage 1

Catalyst Product

AT

RP

To Catalyst Preparation Batch Process
EX-10.11






Exhibit 10.11




12/16/08




DAYTON
SUPERIOR CORPORATION




AMENDED
OUTSIDE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM



On December 16, 2008, the Board of Directors of Dayton Superior Corporation (the
“Company”), acting in accordance with the recommendations of its Compensation Committee,
amended the compensation payable to those directors of the Company who are not employed by the
Company or any subsidiary or by Odyssey Investment Partners Fund, L.P. or any affiliate
(collectively, the “Outside Directors”) for their service on the Board of Directors and its
committees, effective January 1, 2009. The amended program is as follows:





	 	1.	 	Each Outside Director shall be paid a $60,000 annual
retainer fee for each calendar year during which the Outside Director
serves as an Outside Director, to be paid in cash in four equal
quarterly installments. The annual retainer fee shall be prorated for
service of less than a full calendar year.
	 
	 	2.	 	Each Outside Director who serves as a member of the
Audit Committee shall be paid an additional $16,000 fee for each
calendar year during which the Outside Director serves as a member of
the Audit Committee, to be paid in cash in four equal quarterly
installments. The annual fee for membership on the Audit Committee
shall be prorated for membership on the Audit Committee of less than a
full calendar year.
	 
	 	3.	 	The Outside Director who serves as Chair of the Audit
Committee shall be paid an additional $15,000 fee for each calendar
year during which the Outside Director serves as Chair of the Audit
Committee, to be paid in cash in four equal quarterly installments.
The fee for serving as Chair of the Audit Committee shall be prorated
for service of less than a full calendar year.
	 
	 	4.	 	Each Outside Director is encouraged to own at least
25,000 shares of the Company’s common stock.
	 
	 	5.	 	Outside Directors shall receive no additional fee for
attendance at meetings of the Board of Directors or of the committees
of the Board of Directors existing at the time this program is adopted
or for service on any of those committees, other than the Audit
Committee. Directors of the Company who are not Outside Directors
shall receive no separate compensation from the Company for their
service on the Board of Directors or any of its committees.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**
I, Jack H. Brown, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 12, 2004 /s/ Jack H. BrownJack H. BrownChairman of the Board, President,and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.9.1


AMENDMENT 2018-1
TO THE
COMMERCE BANCSHARES, INC.
2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT AS OF APRIL 17, 2013


This Amendment to the Commerce Bancshares, Inc.  2005 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended and restated as of April 17, 2013 (the “Plan”), is adopted by the Board of Directors of Commerce Bancshares, Inc. (“Commerce”) pursuant to the Board’s reserved authority under Section 12.1 of the Plan.
WHEREAS, Commerce desires to amend the Plan to reflect a change to intraday pricing for purposes of administering the exercise of stock options and stock appreciation rights.
NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of November 12, 2018, the definition of Fair Market Value under Section 2.14 of the Plan is amended by adding the following new sentence to end of such Section:
“Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, effective as of November 12, 2018, Fair Market Value shall be determined at the time of exercise of a Nonqualified Stock Option, Incentive Stock Option or Stock Appreciation Right using the most recent intraday sales price on the national securities exchange on which the Shares are listed.”
In all other respects, the Plan shall remain in effect.
*************
William MORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1231

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

July 21, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with Volvo

FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on March 11, 2011 between Volvo, DOT, and

EPA. The attendees included:

Volvo: Michael Sorrels, Matthew Heinke

EPA: Chien Sze, Arvon Mitcham, Angela Cullen

DOT: Coralie Cooper, Maurice Hicks

The discussion focused on enhanced coastdown test procedures, including the following:

 Grade

 Road surface

 Coastdown tracks

 Coastdown data analyss

 Trailer specification

 Speed range

 Tires

 Anemometer

The agencies also discussed full scale wind tunnel testing and wind averaged yaw with Volvo.
**EXHIBIT 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We have issued our reports dated June 2, 2009, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements, schedule and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Rentrak Corporation and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2009. We hereby consent tothe incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Rentrak Corporation and subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File Nos.; 333-28565, effective June 5, 1997; 333-39021, effective October 29, 1997; 333-62523, effectiveAugust 31, 1998; 333-110781, effective November 26, 2003; 333-110782, effective November 26, 2003; 333-136466, effective August 9, 2006; and 333-153643, effective September 24, 2008). 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Portland, Oregon 

June 2, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 24, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                1000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          DEC-29-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                               JUN-16-1998
<CASH>                                                         102,444
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                     11,362
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               126,265
<PP&E>                                                         445,930
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 600,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           30,303
<BONDS>                                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                           397
<OTHER-SE>                                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   600,225
<SALES>                                                        141,023
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               141,023
<CGS>                                                           53,448
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  124,204
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 7,589
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               1,206
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 10,436
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     3,576
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     7,027
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
#### Aaron M. BURNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David SIMMONS, Superintendent; Captain Cowan, Chief of Security, HRRJ; Sergeant Epperson, Unit Manager, HU 1; Sergeant Moore, Unit Manager, HU 1; Sergeant Murphy, Unit Manager, HU 1; Sergeant Jones, Unit Manager, HU 1; Sergeant Phillips, Unit Manager, HU 1; John or Jane Doe, Medical Director, Defendants-Appellees, and Jim O’Sullivan, Sheriff; John Doe, Superintendent; Sergeant Ellis, Internal Affairs, HRRJ; Lieutenant Whitehead, Watch Commander; John Does I-X, Pod Officers (HU 1/2); John/Jane Does I-X, Pod Officers 3/1; John/Jane Does I-X, Pod Officers HU 1/4; John/Jane Does I-X, Pod Officers 1/3; Doe, Mailroom; Jane Doe, Intake Property Officer; Correctional Officer Martin, Chesapeake Correctional Center (CCC); Correctional Officer Parrish, Chesapeake Correctional Center (CCC); Warden Manis, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, Defendants.

No. 17-6520

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 22, 2017

Aaron M. Burns, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Aaron M. Burns seeks to appeal from the district coui’t’s order denying reconsideration of the dismissal without prejudice of his claims against Defendants at Chesapeake Correctional Center, Nottoway Correctional Center, and Western Tidewater Regional Jail based on improper joinder of claims, and dismissing two of the four claims he asserted against Defendants at Hampton Roads Regional Jail in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) pomplaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Burns seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*