alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1 

Attachment 1 

Major Components; Vendor Data and References 

Section 1: Siemens Water Technologies 

Section 2: EIMCO Water Technologies 

Section 3: Beaudrey USA 

Section 4: Passavant Geiger 

Section 5: Johnson Screens 

Section 6: WE Energies, Oak Creek 

Section 7: Charles Point Resource Recovery Facility 

Section 8: IBM Poughkeepsie Facility 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 1: Siemens Water Technologies 

Page 2 of 17 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 2: EIMCO Water Technologies 

Page 3 of 17 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 2: EIMCO Water Technologies 

Page 4 of 17 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 3: Beaudrey USA 

Page 5 of 17 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 4: Passavant Geiger 

Page 6 of 17 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 4: Passavant Geiger 

Page 7 of 17 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 5: Johnson Screens 

Page 8 of 17 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 5: Johnson Screens 

Page 9 of 17 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 5: Johnson Screens 

Page 10 of 17 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 5: Johnson Screens 

Page 11 of 17 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 5: Johnson Screens 

Page 12 of 17 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 5: Johnson Screens 

Page 13 of 17 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 6: WE Energies, Oak Creek 

Page 14 of 17 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 6: WE Energies, Oak Creek 

Page 15 of 17 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 7: Charles Point Resource Recovery Facility 

Page 16 of 17 
 ALTERNATIVE INTAKE TECHNOLOGIES 

AT INDIAN POINT UNITS 2 & 3 

Attachment 1, Section 8: IBM Poughkeepsie Facility 

Page 17 of 17
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 March 29, 2013 JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 12-2484 v. O LLIE P ETERSON , Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 11 CR 517 James B. Zagel, Judge.

O R D E R The opinion issued in the above-entitled case on March 28, 2013, is hereby amended as follows: On page 9, line 6, the second “to the” should be removed from the sentence. The sentence should read: “There, we explained that the defendant could have raised his objection to the probation officer’s recommendation before sentencing, during the sentencing hearing, or in a post-sentencing motion.”
Franchilor DEVALON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-3930

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
#### Howard Anthony BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NEW ORLEANS CITY; Michael S. Harrison, Superintendent of Police, New Orleans Police Department, in his official and individual capacities; Lawrence Dupree, Commander of Seventh District, New Orleans Police Department, in his official and individual capacities; K. Williams, Lieutenant of Seventh District, New Orleans Police Department, in his official and individual capacities; Mitchell J. Landrieu, Mayor of New Orleans, in his official and individual capacities; Rebecca H. Dietz, Attorney for City of New Orleans, in her official and individual capacities; K. Balancier, Officer, in his official and individual capacity; Eric Illarmo, Officer, in his official and individual capacity; Marcus McNeil, Officer, in his official and individual capacity; D. Warter, Officer, in his official and individual capacity; M. Sartain, Officer, in his official and individual capacity; A. Kelly, Officer, in his official and individual capacity; D. Millon, Officer, in his official and individual capacity; M. *207Thompson, Officer, in his official and individual capacity; M. Hunter, Officer, in his official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-30196 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 6, 2017

Howard Anthony Brown, Pro Se

Corwin M. St. Raymond, City of New Orleans, Law Department, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

That court has fully explained the reasons for dismissing the case. The pleading of the plaintiff fails to meet the legal requirements for a claim, lacking specifics for fault or injury to support a claim of constitutional violation.

The record shows a disregard of the law by the plaintiff and authorized conduct by the officer to deal with the circumstances.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### Arika HAYES, aka Swiss Barbie Bone, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kanye WEST, Defendant, and Viacom Inc., Erroneously Sued as Viacom; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-55836

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Arika Háyes, Pro Se

Linda M. Burrow, Christopher G. Caldwell, Attorneys, Caldwell Leslie & Proctor PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Arika Hayes appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

*572The district court properly dismissed Hayes’ action because Hayes failed to allege facts sufficient to show she was the owner of a valid copyright. *See*17 U.S.C. § 411(a) (no-action for infringement of the copyright shall be instituted until “preregistration or registration of the copyright claim shall have been made in accordance with this title”); *L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc.,*676 F.3d 841, 852 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Copyright registration is a precondition, to filing a copyright infringement action.”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Hayes’ motions for reconsideration because Hayes failed to file a new or amended notice of appeal from that order. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); *TAAG Linhas Aereas de Angola v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc.,*915 F.2d 1351, 1354 (9th Cir. 1990) (concluding that “an appeal specifically from the ruling on the [Rule 60(b) ] motion must be taken if the issues raised in that motion are to be considered by the Court of Appeals”).

We reject'as without merit Hayes’ contention that the district judge was biased.

Hayes’ request filed on May 9, 2014, and her motion filed on January 4, 2017, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 10.74


 


	 	17672 N. Laurel Park Drive
	 	Suite 400 E
	 	Livonia, MI  48152


 


February 27, 2018


 


Nanette Dudek


17672 Laurel Park Drive N.


Livonia, MI 48152


 


Re: Amendment to Employment Agreement With Respect to Vesting
of LTI Awards


 


Dear Nanette,


 


Reference is made to the Employment Agreement,
dated as of February 1, 2017, between you and Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC (the “Employment Agreement”).


 


This is to confirm that, effective the
date hereof, Section 4.6 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety, to read as follows:


 


“4.6           Accelerated
Vesting of Equity and LTI Awards. Notwithstanding anything in the 2010 Plan or any award agreement issued thereunder to the
contrary, all then outstanding awards granted to the Employee pursuant to the 2010 Plan, including equity-based awards, performance
awards (payable in cash and/or stock) and awards granted prior to the Effective Date (the “2010 Plan Awards”), shall
immediately become fully vested upon the consummation of a Change in Control (as defined below) (assuming, in the case of each
performance award, target level performance for the entire performance period (without proration of the amount payable thereto).
For purposes of this Agreement, “Change in Control” shall be defined as set forth in Section 2.6 of the 2010 Plan on
the Effective Date of this Agreement.”


 


Except as provided by this letter, the
provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


Please acknowledge your agreement with
the foregoing by countersigning this letter below and returning it to me.


 


	Regards,	 
	 	 
	/s/ James C. Gouin	 
	James C. Gouin	 
	Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 
	Acknowledged and agreed:	 
	 	 
	/s/ Nanette Dudek	 
	Nanette Dudek	 


 


Date: February 27, 2018
Interim Decision #1860 

MATTER Or ZAVALA. 

In SECTION 245 Proceedings 

A-12920329 

Decided by Acting Regional Commissioner August 1, 1963 

Application for adjustment of status under section 245, Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, will be denied in the exercise of discretion to a 31-yearold widow, a native and citizen of Honduras, who has 5 minor children residing in Honduras. 

The application was denied by the District Director, New Orleans, 

Louisiana, on June 27, 1963, and the case is now before this office on 

certification for cons- rleration of the decision in accordance with Part 

103.4, Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations. 

Applicant is a 31-year-old widowed female native and citizen of 

Honduras. She last entered the United States at New Orleans on 

August 22, 1962, and was admitted as a temporary visitor for pleasure 

for three months. This application, which was filed within two months 

after her admission, has been denied in the exercise of discretion for the 

reason that she has five minor children whom she left behind in Honduras and who need her care and protection. The District Director 

concludes that her plans to bring the children to the United States as 

permanent residents, coupled with the lack of her suitable employment 

and the total insufficiency of her sponsor's affidavit of support, offer her 

no satisfactory financial security in this country. As a further unfavorable factor, the applicant, since her entry into this country, has 

been arrested by the New Orleans police. 

The record reflects that the applicant has five children ranging in 

ages from 8 to 15 years who are residing with their paternal grandparents in Honduras. At the time she entered the United States it was 

her intention to seek permanent residence in this country if she liked 

it here, after which she planned to bring them to the United States, 

provided she was financially able to do so. Since being in the United 

States she has not contributed to the support of her children and has 

herself been supported in the main by funds received from her sisters 

628 
Interim Decision #1360 

in Honduras. Since the denial of the application she has become employed as a domestic servant. 

Applicant was arrested by the New Orleans Police Department together with another female three days after she entered the United 

States and charged with theft of currency. The charge was dismissed 

and the alien was released. 

While the factor relating to the applicant's arrest is not pertinent 

to the application, favorable exercise of the Attorney General's discretion is not warranted in this case as the approval of the application 

would be to sanction the applicant's abandonment of her children. Accordingly, the District Director's decision will be approved and the 

application will be denied. 

ORDER: The decision of the District Director, New Orleans, 

Louisiana, is approved and the application is denied. 

629
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS OF PERIODIC REPORT

PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with
this annual report on Form 10-K of eOn Communications Corporation (Registrant) I, David S. Lee, Chief Executive Officer of Registrant , certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 this
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.



|                       |  |  |  |                                     
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------
|                       |  | 
|Date: October 28, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    DAVID S. LEE                 
|                       |  |  |  | David S. Lee Chief Executive Officer



In connection with
this annual report on Form 10-K of eOn Communications Corporation (Registrant) I, Stephen R. Bowling, Chief Financial Officer of Registrant, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 this
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.



|                       |  |  |  |                                           
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|                       |  | 
|Date: October 28, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    STEPHEN R.
BOWLING                 
|                       |  |  |  | Stephen R. Bowling Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          79,707
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          96,744
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               152,770
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     66,796
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         219,566
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           219,566
<LOANS>                                      1,700,469
<ALLOWANCE>                                     57,830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,263,712
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,699,310
<SHORT-TERM>                                    62,385
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             79,744
<LONG-TERM>                                    278,910
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,471
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,934
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,263,712
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                146,494
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               22,494
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,818
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               170,806
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              79,829
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             104,806
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           66,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  114,675
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              13,092
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 92,212
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (94,308)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (61,105)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,405
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,700)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.79)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   10.61
<LOANS-NON>                                     91,250
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                31,841
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   91,793
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,388
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               57,830
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            57,830
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Althea Marie HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1453

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

*93Althea Marie Hughes, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Althea Marie Hughes appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action for failure to state a claim for relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Hughes v. Bank of Am.,*No. 3:16-cv-00672-HEH (E.D. Va. Feb. 21, 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*
Terry COTTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2103

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN RE: Robert O'Neal CHADWICK, Jr.

NO. 2018-B-0691

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 15, 2018

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline in which respondent admitted that his conduct violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Robert O'Neal Chadwick, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 19517, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. It is further ordered that all but six months of the suspension shall be deferred, subject to a two-year period of unsupervised probation. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent and the ODC execute a *1042formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred portion of the suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.
Joseph Dean MAGLIOCCA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-0053

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

Kenneth David Padowitz of Kenneth D. Padowitz, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Damoorgian, Forst and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
Tyrrell HOLMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2939

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EX PARTE Sara Dunn HABEL

CR-16-0697

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial
information extracted from audited financial
statements for the nine month period ending
September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                               0000883424
<NAME>            WINTHROP MIAMI ASSOCIATES L. P.            
<MULTIPLIER>                                                   1
<CURRENCY>                              U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1997           
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                1
<CASH>                                                 2,704,000
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          4,461,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                             (20,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               0
<PP&E>                                                59,150,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (11,582,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        63,753,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          0
<BONDS>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                             9,564,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          63,753,000
<SALES>                                                8,952,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       9,323,000
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       7,348,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     3,605,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          205,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (1,690,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        1,895,000
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                             205,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                685
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                685
        

</TABLE>