alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP America Production Company; BP, P.L.C., Objecting Parties-Appellants v. CLAIMANT ID 100211268, Requesting Party-Appellee

No. 16-31118

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 14, 2017

*198Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.,

PER CURIAM: *

Before the court is BP Exploration *&*Production, Inc.’s appeal of the district court’s grant of discretionary review and reinstatement of the Claims Administrator’s award to Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (“MOUSA”).

MOUSA filed 127 claims under the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) that have been consolidated for review. The underlying issue throughout the claims process, and on review, is whether MOUSA is excluded from the Settlement Agreement under Section 2.2.45 (“Oil and Gas Industry”) and Exhibit 17 (“Oil & Gas Industry Exclusions”). MOUSA urges that the focus should be on only its independent business activities— namely, retail sales of gasoline—and not on its excluded parent company’s business activities.

The Claims Administrator determined that MOUSA was not excluded from the Settlement Agreement and awarded it over $58.4 million (post-RTP). Subsequently, the Appeal Panel, sitting en banc, observed that MOUSA’s parent company, Murphy Oil Corporation (“MOC”), “was a cradle to grave oil company, which engaged in the full array of operations beginning with exploration and extraction and ending with the retail sale of fuel.” The Appeal Panel reversed the award because it unanimously found that MOUSA “was the refining and marketing arm of an inte- ■ grated oil and gas company and, therefore, is excluded from the [Settlement Agreement] class pursuant to Section 2.2.4.5.”

MOUSA appealed the Appeal Panel’s decision to the district court, and the district court granted discretionary review. The district court first determined which North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) code best described the *primary*nature of MOUSA’s business. Relying on Section 2.2.4, the district court found that the focus must be on the substantive nature of MOUSA’s business, not MOUSA’s legal or juridical form, such as its parent company MOC, because Section 4.4.7.1 requires the Claims Administrator to determine the appropriate NAICS code “for the Entity” that filed the claim. Ultimately, the district court found MOUSA’s argument—that its primary business was retail sales of gasoline—persuasive. It therefore applied the not-exeluded NAICS code for “Gasoline Stations and Convenience Stores” to MOUSA and reinstated the Claims Administrator’s original award. BP timely appealed the district court’s judgment.

Having considered the briefs, the réc-ord, and the arguments of counsel, we agree with the district court that MOUSA is not an excluded entity under the Settlement Agreement, and we therefore AFFIRM.

*

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 213 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 213

         Commending Senator Sam Nunn for casting 10,000 votes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 1996

 Mr. Daschle submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
         Commending Senator Sam Nunn for casting 10,000 votes.

    Whereas the Honorable Sam Nunn has served with distinction and 
            commitment as a United States Senator from the State of 
            Georgia since January 1973;
    Whereas his dedicated service as a United States Senator has 
            contributed to the effectiveness and betterment of this 
            institution;
    Whereas he has dutifully and faithfully served the Senate as 
            chairman of the Armed Services Committee, (1987-1994); and
    Whereas his expertise and leadership in defense and military 
            policies has been of tremendous benefit to our Nation and 
            to our men and women in uniform: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the United States Senate congratulates the Honorable 
Sam Nunn, the senior Senator from Georgia, for becoming the 17th United 
States Senator in history to cast 10,000 votes.
    Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this 
resolution to Senator Sam Nunn.
                                 <all>
```
#### IN RE: Catherine Denise RANDOLPH, Appellant.

No. 17-2286

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 27, 2017

Catherine Denise Randolph, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM:

Catherine Denise Randolph appeals the district court’s order returning her complaint because it was not in compliance with the prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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*
# EUR-Lex - 32001R0215 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R0215

**Council Regulation (EC) No 215/2001 of 29 January 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999 laying down certain control measures applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the north-east Atlantic fisheries **

*
Official Journal L 031 , 02/02/2001 P. 0001 - 0001 *

Council Regulation (EC) No 215/2001

of 29 January 2001

amending Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999 laying down certain control measures applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the north-east Atlantic fisheries

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 37 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),

Whereas:

(1) Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999(3) provides for certain Articles to remain in force on an ad hoc basis until 31 December 2000, with the Commission required to submit, before 30 September 2000 at the latest, any appropriate proposals providing for a definitive regime.

(2) Pending a proposal providing for a definitive regime, the ad hoc application of Articles 6(3), 8, 10 and 11 should be extended until 31 December 2002.

(3) Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999 should therefore be amended,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999 is hereby amended as follows:

1. The footnotes to Articles 6(3), 8, 10 and 11 shall be deleted.

2. In Article 30, the date "31 December 2000" shall be replaced each time by "31 December 2002" and the date "30 September 2000" shall be replaced by "30 September 2002".

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 January 2001.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 January 2001.

For the Council

The President

M. Winberg

(1) Proposal of 31 October 2000 (not yet published in the Official Journal)

(2) Opinion delivered on 17 January 2001 (not yet published in the Official Journal)

(3) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 1.
EXHIBIT 32



In connection with the annual report of Strongbow Resources Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2009 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Herbert Schmidt, the Principal Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the company.





|                      |  |                                           | 
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------- | 
|Date:   June 12, 2009 |  |                                           | 
|                      |  | STRONGBOW RESOURCES INC                  
|                      |  |                                           | 
|                      |  | /s/ HERBERT SCHMIDT                      
|                      |  | Herbert Schmidt,                         
|                      |  | Principal Executive and Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED



I, Joseph R. Rozelle, certify that:



1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Compass Acquisition Corporation;



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:  November 24, 2009



/s/    Joseph R. Rozelle

------------------------------------

Joseph R. Rozelle

Principal Executive Officer

and Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 35.1

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(SM)


                       REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance

I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transaction listed below and I certify:

a)    A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
      its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made
      under my supervision.

b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
      below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
      agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

c)    None


                                By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------
                                    Robert M. Abramian
                                    First Vice President
                                    Home Loan Servicing
                                    Investor Reporting
                                    Indymac Bank


                                By: /s/ Barbara Perez
                                    ----------------------
                                    Barbara Perez
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Indymac Bank



Prepared for:   Deutsche Bank

Date:           February 28, 2007

Ref:            6008 - RAST 2006-A14 CB (GREENWICH)



                                                             www.indymacbank.com


             460 Sierra Madre Villa Ave., Pasadena, CA 91107   Tel: 626.535.5555
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1874 BETTY T. GORDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DUPONT PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees, and WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-846-7-RD) Submitted: November 30, 1998 Decided: January 21, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Betty T. Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Kyle Epps, Hill B. Wellford, Jr., Wood Walter Lay, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Betty T. Gordon appeals the district court’s order denying relief in her action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Gordon v. DuPont Pension , No. CA-95-846-7-RD (W.D. Va. May 13, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.03


                      ELECTRONIC ARTS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                  DESCRIPTION OF REGISTRANT'S FISCAL YEAR 2003
                              EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN


Target annual bonuses are set for each executive based upon a percentage of base
salary. Bonuses are generally paid in two parts, one of which relates only to
the Company's earnings results, and one of which is discretionary and is
measured against each individual executive's contributions. Some executives may
have a third part which relates to a specific business unit's or product's
financial performance. Bonuses are paid after the end of the fiscal year. If
profits in any period are less than 85% of the Company's plan, no bonus based on
the Company's performance may be paid for that period. If profits exceed plan
during a period, the bonus rate is accelerated for the incremental profits above
plan, with a maximum of 200% payout of the bonus target.
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 267

To make changes in committee membership for the 104th Congress.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 20, 1996

Mr. LOTT submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed

to

RESOLUTION

To make changes in committee membership for the 104th

Congress.

1 Resolved, That notwithstanding any provision of the

2 Standing Rules of the Senate, the following Senators are

3 either added to or removed from the following committees

4 for the 104th Congress, or until their successors are ap5 pointed:

6 ADDED TO

7 ARMED SERVICES: The Senator from Kansas (Mrs.

8 Frahm).

9 BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS: The Sen10 ator from Kansas (Mrs. Frahm).

11 FINANCE: The Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
2

SRES 267 ATS

1 GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS: The Senator from New

2 Mexico (Mr. Domenici).

3 AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY: The

4 Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm).

5 RULES AND ADMINISTRATION: The Senator from

6 Mississippi (Mr. Lott).

7 BUDGET: The Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack).

8 REMOVED FROM

9 ARMED SERVICES: The Senator from Mississippi

10 (Mr. Lott).

11 BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS: The Sen12 ator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici).

13 GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS: The Senator from Colo14 rado (Mr. Brown).

15 BUDGET: The Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).

Æ
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-06-00394- CV Bonn ie Ca r te r , in div idua lly , a nd on b e hal f of J. C. , am ino r ; S c ot t C ar te r , in div idua lly , a nd on be hal f of J. C. , am ino r ; E le ano rDr aug hn; And r e w Dr aug hn and Susa n Dr aug hn, Appellan ts v. Dus ti n M c M anus , R am z i A bbya d, J as on N uc kol ls, Tr av is M c Le m or e , a nd Ty le rHunki n, Appellees F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-04- 0034 60, H ONO RAB LE STEPH EN YELENO SKY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Th e jud g me nt a

pp e a le d f ro m is no t f

ina l be c a us e it d oe s n ot d isp os e of a ll i ssu e s in the c a us e be low . Couns e l f

or theDr a ughn a pp e lla nts ha s r e qu e ste d th at w e a bate thi s a pp e a l whil e they seek a sever ance of the matters appea led from those pending in the cause below. We gr ant the mot ion and a bate the a pp e a l until fu

rt he r o rd e r o f t

his Court .

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ember ton and Waldrop Abated Filed: September

22, 2006
Regulatory

Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-3982 Directorate Identifier: 2 0 1 5 - N M - 0 9 8 -AD

Estimated Costs:

On-Condition Costs: Service Bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for Repair. Since repair is not

defined, there is no cost available for this table.

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Repair $ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special

considerations

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost

(@$85/h 

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts)

Number of

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection for existing 

repairs, distress

11 $ 935.00 0 $ 935.00 106 $99,110.00

Repetitive inspections

for cracking and loose 

and missing fasteners

7 $ 595.00 0 $ 595.00 106 $63,070.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $162,180

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $
$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerationsfor Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated 

Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty 

costs):

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

*Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

*Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

YES* ☐ NO ☒

YES* ☐ NO ☒

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Explain for either a Yes or No answer.

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

YES ☐ NO ☒

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of

transportation?

*Explanation:

YES* ☐ NO ☒
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov> To: Jillian Tinnes <jillian.tinnes@lamarlp.com> Date: 10/5/2010 1:01 PM Subject: Re: EPA Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power - Lamar, CO Attachments: pic30062.jpg

Greetings Jill,

Per our phone conversation , please consider this email as EPA's official response to your extension request. EPA has reviewed your extension request for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire for the City of Lamar Power Plant, Colorado. The deadline for your plant to submit Version 2 of the completed questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010.

If you need assistance during the completion of the steam electric questionnaire, please contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-7560.

Sincerely,

(Embedded image moved to file: pic30062.jpg)

From: Jillian Tinnes <jillian.tinnes@lamarlp.com>

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Virgil Cochran <virgil.cochran@lamarlp.com>

Date: 09/29/2010 11:32 AM

Subject: EPA Questionaire for the Steam Electric Power - Lamar, CO

Dear Jezebele,

My name is Jillian Tinnes, I am the Administrative Supervisor for the City of Lamar Power Plant. I have been compiling information for the Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating. Though we are aware that the Questionnaire is required to be returned to your division within 90 days of receipt, we are not able to complete all the sections at this time.

Some of the information required is currently being compiled by an outside company who is contracted to haul the ash from our facilities. We are in contact with this compan y and they anticipate providing us with information regarding the ash, which is a large portion of section C, within the next two weeks. Also, a newly appointed Plant Supervisor has just begun to look at the portion of the questionnaire that pertainsto his operation. He has requested some additional time to review and provide his answers.

Considering both these positions, I would like to request an extension to provide a completed questionnaire by October 18, 2010. I am confident that all questions will be answered most accurately provided that we obtain some time to compile them.

Thank you for your consideration,

Jillian Tinnes jillian.tinnes@lamarlp.com Administrative Services Supervisor Lamar Light and Power
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 212

To constitute the minority party’s membership on the Ethics Committee

for the 104th Congress, or until their successors are chosen.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 23, 1996

Mr. DASCHLE submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To constitute the minority party’s membership on the Ethics

Committee for the 104th Congress, or until their successors are chosen.

1 Resolved, That the following shall constitute the mi2 nority party’s membership on the Ethics Committee for

3 the 104th Congress, or until their successors are chosen:

4 The Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), Vice

5 Chairman, the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), and the

6 Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray).

Æ