alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. EPA FACT SHEET

The EPA Redesignates Truckee Meadows to Attainment for the 

Coarse Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard

November 16, 2015

Summary

 The EPA is approving Nevada’s plan for the Truckee Meadows area, also referred to as 

the Reno planning area, to maintain the inhalable coarse particulate matter 24-hour 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (PM10 NAAQS). These particles are commonly 

referred to as PM10 because they have a diameter of ten micrometers or less.

 The EPA is also approving Nevada’s request to redesignate Truckee Meadows to 

attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. 

Background

 Today’s actions represent a significant accomplishment accomplished primarily through 

the actions of the Washoe County District Board of Health, whose regulations and 

programs have greatly reduced PM10. 

 With this action, Nevada is currently meeting all the federal health protective standards 

for clean air. This is a tremendous milestone and reflects cooperation among the public, 

businesses, local, state and federal agencies throughout the State.

 In 2011 The EPA previously determined that Truckee Meadows had attained the PM10

NAAQS. Complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for 

the area shows it has continued to attain the PM10 NAAQS since that time. 

 The EPA is concerned about PM10 because these particles pass through the throat and 

nose and enter the lungs. Reducing PM10 levels is essential because, once inhaled, these 

particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects.

 PM10 is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. In the 

Truckee Meadows area it is predominately comprised of “primary particulates,” such as 

particles from soil or dust, residential wood burning, and diesel. 

Next Steps

 Today’s actions will be published in the Federal Register in approximately two weeks 

and be effective 30 days after publication. 

For More Information: 

http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/actions/nv.html#washoe
EX-10.20





 EXHIBIT 10.20 

WisdomTree Investments, Inc. 

245 Park Avenue, 35th Floor 

New York, NY 10167 

October 1, 2018 
 DELIVERY BY HAND

 Mr. Luciano Siracusano III 
 Chief Investment
Strategist 
 WisdomTree Investments, Inc. 
 Dear Luciano: 

This letter confirms our agreement as set forth below concerning your employment with WisdomTree Investments, Inc. and its subsidiaries
(collectively, “WisdomTree”). 
 1. You hereby resign your employment with WisdomTree, effective October 31, 2018.

 2. For the purposes of the letter agreement (the “Executive Agreement”) dated as of December 22, 2016 between you
and WisdomTree Asset Management, Inc. (“WTAM”), WTAM shall deem your employment to have ceased as a result of a termination by WTAM that constitutes an Involuntary Termination (as defined in the Executive Agreement). 

3. The Executive Agreement shall be deemed amended as follows: 

a. In Paragraph 7, “twelve months” shall be amended to read “eighteen months” in the sentence describing
COBRA insurance; and 
 b. Paragraph 3(b)(ii) shall be amended to read: “(ii) in the event of an Involuntary Termination
(as defined below) of your employment, (I) you shall be entitled to accelerated vesting only with respect to the shares of Restricted Stock, if any, that would have vested during the Post-Employment Period, (II) vesting shall otherwise
cease as of the Date of Termination, but your non-vested shares of Restricted Stock will not be forfeited until the later of (a) the last day of the Post-Employment Period and (b) April 30,
2020, and (III) if a Change of Control occurs on or before the later of (a) the last day of the Post-Employment Period and (b) April 30, 2020, you shall be entitled to the same vesting with respect to the shares of Restricted
Stock as you would have if you had been employed on the date of the Change of Control.” 












 Mr. Luciano Siracusano III 

October 1, 2018 
 Page 2 

 
 4. Except as expressly amended above, the Executive Agreement remains
unmodified and in full force and effect. 
 It has been an extraordinary pleasure to have worked with you at WisdomTree (including its
earlier incarnations as Individual Investor Group and Index Development Partners) and I wish you the very best of success in your next endeavors. 
  

	
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 /s/ Gregory Barton

	
	 Gregory Barton



  

	
	 AGREED

	
	 /s/ Luciano Siracusano III

	 Luciano Siracusano III
Reynaldo E. RAPALO, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0308

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Charles J. Deisbeck, Chief Executive Officer of Breda Telephone Corp., certify that to my knowledge (i) Breda Telephone Corp.'s Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Breda Telephone Corp.





Date: May 28, 2010




/s/ Charles J. DeisbeckCharles J. Deisbeck, Chief Executive Officer
 
  E-3
#### John E. WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Secretary, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-15543 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 10/28/2016

John E. Watkins, Pro Se, Wewahitchka, FL.

Jamie Melissa Braun, Susan Adams Maher, Carrie B. McNamara, Attorney General’s Office, Tallahassee, FL.

April J. Anderson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ayesha N. Khan, U.S. Department of Justice, Bethesda, MD, Amicus Curiae for the United States of America.

Luke William Goodrich, Daniel Howard Blomberg, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, Amicus Curiae for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty-

*983Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections appeals the summary judgment and injunction in favor of John Watkins’s complaint that the Department violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. The Secretary argues that the Department is not required to provide Watkins a kosher diet because the state has a compelling interest in cost containment and security and that the injunction is not narrowly drawn as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We affirm.

Two standards of review govern this appeal. We review a summary judgment *de novo. Frazier-White v. Gee,*818 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2016). And we review the entry of a permanent injunction for an abuse of discretion. *Thomas v. Bryant,*614 F.3d 1288, 1303 (11th Cir. 2010).

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Watkins and against the Secretary. Our recent decision in *United States v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr.,*828 F.3d 1341, 1345-46 (11th Cir. 2016), forecloses the Secretary’s argument that the Department has no obligation to provide a Watkins a kosher diet. To the extent that the Secretary argues that Watkins’s complaint is distinct because he may later ask for an individual diet, that argument is not ripe. Watkins offers no complaint about the diet that the Department is currently providing him.

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in entering an injunction against the Secretary. The injunction is narrowly drawn. It limits relief to Watkins alone. It does not enter system-wide relief requiring the Department to provide religiously acceptable diets to any other inmate. An injunction defining in detail the requirements for a kosher meal would be broader than necessary and would impose greater restrictions on the Department. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Jane Morlok, Chief Financial Officer of Breda Telephone Corp., certify that to my knowledge (i) Breda Telephone Corp.'s Second Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Breda Telephone Corp.





Date: December 31, 2010





/s/ Jane MorlokJane Morlok, Chief Financial Officer







E - 4
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 6713

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JOSHUA JULIUS COLE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:09

- cr - 00327

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : August 31, 2021 Decided: January 11, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and MOTZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Joshua Julius Cole , Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, As sistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joshua Julius Cole appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 404(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. Having reviewed the record , we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cole’s motion. See Unite d States v. Jackson , 952 F.3d 492, 497, 502 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating standard of review) . Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argum ent would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Manuel MORALES-CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50361

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 25, 2017

Jarad E. Hodes, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Benjamin J. Cheeks, Attorney, Law Offices of Benjamin J. Cheeks, A.P.C., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Manuel Morales-Contreras appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

*772Morales-Contreras contends that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.C. § 3B1.2(b). After Morales-Contreras was sentenced, the United States Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”), 'which amended the commentary to the minor role Guideline. The Amendment is retroactive to cases pending on direct appeal. *See United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016).

The Amendment clarified that, in assessing whether a defendant should receive a minor role adjustment, the court should compare him to the other participants in the crime, rather than to a hypothetical average participant. *See*U.S.S.G. App. C Amend. 794; *Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d at 523. In addition, the Amendment clarified that “[t]he fact that a defendant performs an essential or indispensable role in the criminal activity is not determinative.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Finally, the Amendment added a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court “should consider” in determining whether to apply a minor role reduction. *See id. -*Because we cannot determine from the record whether the district court followed the guidance of the Amendment’s clarifying language and considered all of the now-relevant factors, we vacate Morales-Contreras’s sentence and remand for resentencing under the Amendment. *See Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d at 523-24.

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Shon ASHBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, (USCIS); Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1532

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 28, 2017

Decided: September 20, 2017

Shon Ashby, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey llene Young, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Shon Ashby appeals the district court’s' order dismissing his amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, *Ashby v. U.S. Dep’t of State,*No. 3:16-cv-00585-FDW-DCK, 2017 WL 1363323 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 2017). To the extent that Ashby seeks to raise a new issue on appeal, we perceive no exceptional circumstances that would allow us to reach such an issue. *See Pornomo v. United States,*814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016). We deny Ashby’s motion to remove Appel-lees’ attorneys and nullify the judgment, motion for return of visa application fees, motion to add additional defendants, and motion for fraud. 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*
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



To the Board of Directors of
W Holding Company, Inc.
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-60126 and 333-92418 of W Holding Company, Inc. on Forms S-8 and S-3,
respectively, of our report dated February 21, 2003, incorporated by reference
in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of W Holding Company, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2002.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Juan, Puerto Rico
March 28, 2003


Stamp No. 1857180
affixed to original.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 28, 2011

p1219 

# Order

December 28, 2011

143697

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 14 3697 COA: 297672 Oakland CC: 2009-229892-FC MICHAEL LEE MASSEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 26, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 21.1





Subsidiaries of the Registrant


(as of June 27, 2010)














1-800-FLOWERS Service Support Center, Inc. (New York)


1-800-FLOWERS Team Services, Inc. (Delaware)


1-800-FLOWERS Retail, Inc. (Delaware)


1-800-FLOWERS.COM Franchise Co., Inc. (Delaware)


800-FLOWERS, Inc. (New York)


Conroy’s Inc. (California)


The Popcorn Factory, Inc. (Delaware)


Guarded Realty Holdings, LLC (Delaware)


BloomNet, Inc. (Delaware)


The Winetasting Network (California)


WTN Services, LLC (California)


Cheryl & Co. (Ohio)


Floranet Iberia S.L. (Spain)


Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc. (formerly FMCB Acquisition Co., Inc.) (Delaware)


Fannie May Confections, Inc. (Delaware)


Harry London Candies, Inc. (Ohio)


Fresh Gift Cards, Inc. (Florida)


DesignPac Co., Inc. (Delaware)


DesignPac Gifts, LLC (Illinois)


Napco Marketing Corp. (Delaware)


Fannie May Franchise, LLC (Delaware)


18F Virginia, Inc. (formerly The Plow & Hearth, Inc.) (Virginia)


WTN Marketing Agent, LLC (Delaware)


Celebrations, LLC (Delaware)
Director
Compensation


Committee
Approved February 17, 2009


Board
Approved February 17, 2009


Effective
May1, 2009





Board of Director
Retainer:


Outside
directors to receive an annual retainer of $32,200 to be paid in a combination
of cash and restricted stock..





Cash:  A monthly
cash payment of $2,100 ($25,200 annually) to be paid at the beginning of the
month following the month of service.  Directors may miss a maximum of
two scheduled board meetings without penalty.





Restricted
Stock:  Annually, subject to full board approval, timing and
vesting qualifications, outside directors will receive an equity award
(restricted stock) with an economic value of $7,000.





Special Service
Retainer


Special
quarterly service retainers are paid the month following the end of the quarter
for the following service





Board
Chair $2,800


Audit
Chair $2,500


Compensation
Chair $1,500


Governance/Nominating
Chair $1,500


ALCO
Chair $1,500


Executive
committee members $1,500


(Eligible
if non-employee and not receiving Chair


Retainer)





Committee
Meetings


In addition to the annual retainer,
attendance at committee meetings entitles outside directors to additional
compensation in the amount of $200 for attendance at scheduled “in-person”
committee meetings and $100 for telephone meetings.





Telephone Board
Meetings


Occasionally
it is necessary to call a telephone meeting of the board of
directors.  Directors attending these meetings are entitled to
$100.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryan Keith NOEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6296

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

*129Bryan Keith Noel, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Louise Rikard, Edward R. Ryan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Benjamin Bain-Creed, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bryan Keith Noel seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Noel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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*
Exhibit








Livent Corporation
Executive Severance Guidelines for Corporate Officers
Background
The intent of these severance guidelines (“Guidelines”) is to provide corporate officers of Livent Corporation (the “Company”) with reasonable transition benefits in the event of a termination of his or her employment without cause (other than in the context of a change in control or as a result of death, disability or normal retirement). This document is a guideline for the Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Any deviations from these Guidelines will be reviewed and approved by the Compensation and Organization Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Committee”).
Severance Guidelines
Key elements of the Guidelines:
		
	•
	Severance Pay


		
	•
	Twelve (12) months base salary, payable in a lump sum;


		
	-
	Twelve (12) months of target bonus, payable in a lump sum; and


		
	-
	Prorated target bonus for the year of termination 


		
	•
	Medical/Dental Benefits 


		
	-
	Twelve (12) months of continued benefits from the termination date at normal employee rates


		
	•
	Long-Term Incentives, Stock Options, Restricted Stock Units and Performance-Based Cash/Equity


		
	-
	Unvested options that would have vested within one calendar year following termination become exercisable on regularly scheduled dates, and remain exercisable for twelve months thereafter


		
	-
	Twelve (12) months to exercise vested options


		
	-
	Prorated vesting of service-vesting restricted stock units at termination date 


		
	-
	“Banked” performance-based cash/equity awards will vest and be paid at the end of the original performance cycle


		
	-
	Prorated vesting of “unbanked” performance-based cash/equity awards as of the termination date, which will be paid at the end of the original performance cycle, based on actual performance for each applicable measurement period


		
	•
	Other Transition Benefits


		
	-
	Outplacement assistance ($20K cap)


		
	-
	Vacation pay (earned and accrued)


		
	-
	Financial planning assistance for last calendar year of employment


		
	-
	Tax planning for last calendar year of employment


		
	•
	Conditions


		
	-
	Corporate officer must execute non-compete, non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreement in a form satisfactory to the Company


		
	-
	Corporate officer must execute and not revoke a release of claims in a form satisfactory to the Company 


Role of the Committee
The Committee approves these Guidelines and any amendments or exceptions hereto. The Committee should be notified prior to the termination of any corporate officer. These Guidelines will be reviewed periodically to ensure that they are appropriate and relevant to the market.
Role of Management
Management advises the Committee of any anticipated termination of a corporate officer of the Company, periodically reviews the appropriateness of these Guidelines, and administers the Guidelines in a fair and evenhanded manner.
Effective Date
October 10, 2018








Livent Confidential    1