alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Tom Gerstle [mailto:tgerstle@eqm.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 11:04 AM To: Chin, Conrad Cc: john.hughes@erametgroup.com; jeff.mckinney@erametgroup.com Subject: Revised Furnace 12 Process Material Weight Summary Sheet

Conrad,

Attached is a revised Process Material Weight Summary sheet for inclusion in the April 19, 2013 ICR summary report. Please replace the existing Furnace 12 Total Material Weight Summary, which is the last page of Appendix D, with the attached page.

Than ks,

Tom

Tom Gerstle, P.E. Manager, Air Compliance Environmental Quality Management, Inc.
1800 Carillon Boulevard Cincinnati, Ohio 45240
513

- 825

- 7500, x 251 office
513

- 825

- 7495 fax
513

- 673

- 4052 mobile

www.eqm.com tgerstle@eqm.com

The information contained in this electronic message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is address and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt
from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this messa ge is not the intended recipient, you are informed that any dissemination, copying or disclosure of the material contained herein, to include any attachments, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender and purge this message.
# C_2021329EN.01004101.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/41

---

Action brought on 1 July 2021 — Sympatex Technologies v EUIPO — Liwe Española (Sympathy Inside)

(Case T-372/21)

(2021/C 329/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sympatex Technologies GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Liwe Española, SA (Puente Tocinos, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union work mark Sympathy Inside — Application for registration No 16 286 106

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2021 in Case R 1777/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the opposition against the European Union trademark application No 16 286 106 ‘Sympathy Inside’ (word mark) in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition against the European Union trademark application No 16 286 106 ‘Sympathy Inside’ (word mark) in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the court proceedings and the other party to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the court proceedings and the other party to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                       Consent of Independent Accountants

     We hereby consent to the use in this Amendment No. 6 to Registration
Statement on Form S-4 of our report dated November 20, 2002 relating to the
financial statements of Hanover Equipment Trust 2001A, which appears in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in such Registration Statement.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Houston, Texas
February 11, 2003
# The Kremlin’s Never-Ending Attempt to Spread Disinformation about Biological Weapons

/ Published March 14, 2023
#### Ruben VELA, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-50359 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 1, 2018

Ruben Vela, Sr., Pro Se

Joseph Peter Corcoran, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, Edward Larry Marshall, Office of the Attorney General, Postconviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appel-lee

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ruben Vela, Sr., Texas prisoner # 1582906, appeals the dismissal by the district court of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as application for lack of jurisdiction. Vela argues that the district court erroneously construed his § 2254 application as a writ of mandamus and urges that the state court has refused him access to courts by not providing him a copy of the record.

“[A] federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought.” *Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb Cnty. Superior Court,*474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973). Because Vela asked the district court to order the state court to provide a copy of the record, the district court correctly construed the application as a writ of mandamus and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. *See id.*

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.
# Safe and Supportive Schools

- Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights Opens Investigations in Five States Regarding Prohibitions of Universal Indoor Masking Today, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened directed investigations in five states exploring whether statewide prohibitions on universal indoor masking discriminate against students with disabilities who are at heightened risk for severe illness from COVID-19 by preventing them from safely accessing in-person education.
- U.S. Department of Education Launches Best Practices Clearinghouse to Highlight Innovative Practices for Reopening Schools and Campuses Today, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) launched the Safer Schools and Campuses Best Practices Clearinghouse (the Clearinghouse), a website that highlights the innovative work underway nationwide in continuing to reopen K-12 schools, early childhood centers and postsecondary institutions.
- U.S. Education Department Releases State Plan Template for the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Today, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) released the State plan application that will support states in describing how they will use resources under the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ARP ESSER) fund to continue to safely reopen schools, sustain their safe operations, and support students—especially those most impacted by the pandemic. 
- U.S. Department of Education Releases "COVID-19 Handbook, Volume 2: Roadmap to Reopening Safely and Meeting All Students' Needs" Today, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) released the COVID-19 Handbook, Volume 2: Roadmap to Reopening Safely and Meeting All Students' Needs to provide additional strategies for safely reopening all of America's schools and to promote educational equity by addressing opportunity gaps that have been exacerbated by the pandemic.
- Statement from U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona on Signing of the American Rescue Plan "The American Rescue Plan is a victory for our nation's students and schools. As I have said since being sworn into office, my top priority is getting students back into schools safely.
- U.S. Department of Education COVID-19 Handbook Volume 1: Strategies for Safely Reopening Elementary and Secondary Schools To reopen safely during the COVID-19 pandemic and maximize the amount of in-person instruction, schools need sufficient resources as well as adhered-to, strong state and local public health measures. Extraordinary efforts by states, districts, and schools have been underway to support students throughout the pandemic.
- ED Announces National Survey to Gather Critical Data on School Reopening To help safely reopen America's schools and promote educational equity, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) at the U.S. Department of Education today announced the largest representative and highest-quality effort yet to gather vital data on the impact of COVID-19 on students and the status of in-person learning.
ACCEPTED04-17-00074-CVFOURTH COURT OF APPEALSSAN ANTONIO, TEXAS3/23/2017 10:25:50 AMKEITH HOTTLECLERK
No. 11-10198.

#### Holloway *v.*Magness et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Estelean Jeanette DODGE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-1417

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: January 26, 2018

Filed: February 13, 2018

Estelean Jeanette Dodge, Pro Se

Jodi Warmbrod Dishman, McAfee & Taft, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant-Appellee

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Estelean Jeanette Dodge appeals after the District Court1 dismissed her complaint alleging that she had been wrongfully denied long-term disability benefits and asserting a claim under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. The District Court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, concluding in a well-reasoned order that the cause of action was time-barred. After de novo review, we conclude that the dismissal was proper for the reasons stated by the District Court.2 See Kelly v. City of Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review).

We affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

2

. We decline to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal or documents that were not before the District Court. See Dubinsky v. Mermart, LLC, 595 F.3d 812, 819 (8th Cir. 2010); Griffin v. Super Valu, 218 F.3d 869, 871 (8th Cir. 2000).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

          - 26 CFR Part 1

### CFR Correction

This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

In Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1 (§§ 1.301 to 1.400), revised as of April 1, 2021, in § 1.351-3, revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 1.351-3 

* * * * *

                            (f)                             *Effective/applicability date.*                             This section applies to any taxable year beginning on or after May 30, 2006. However, taxpayers may apply this section to any original Federal income tax return (including any amended return filed on or before the due date (including extensions) of such original return) timely filed on or after May 30, 2006. For taxable years beginning before May 30, 2006, see § 1.351-3 as contained in 26 CFR part 1 in effect on April 1, 2006. Paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3) of this section apply with respect to exchanges under section 351 occurring on or after March 28, 2016, and also with respect to exchanges under section 351 occurring before such date as a result of an entity classification election under § 301.7701-3 of this chapter filed on or after March 28, 2016, unless such exchange is pursuant to a binding agreement that was in effect                                   ( print page 17951)                                prior to March 28, 2016 and at all times thereafter.                        

[FR Doc. 2022-06669 Filed 3-28-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 0099-10-D
No. 11-9761.

#### Strong *v.*Merrill Lynch.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD, STOP 6201

FORT BELVOIR, VA 22060-6201

May 17, 2024 

MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION C 

SUBJECT: Policy Statement on Harassment in the Workplace

I will ensure the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) continues to maintain an

environment that is free of workplace harassment. Harassment erodes both trust and morale and 

ultimately impacts our ability to accomplish the mission. It is vital that all personnel uphold a 

culture that fosters high professional standards and integrity. 

Harassment is unacceptable behavior and is a violation of Federal laws, regulations, and 

policies. Harassment comes in many forms, it can be oral, visual, written, or physical.

Harassment becomes unlawful when (1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of

continued employment, or (2) the conduct is severe and pervasive enough to create a work 

environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. 

Harassment can also be unwelcome conduct exhibited toward someone based upon that person’s 

race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), national 

origin, age (40 years and older), disability (physical or mental), genetic information, disability, or

reprisal for participating in prior equal employment opportunity activities. 

Managers and supervisors have the duty to act promptly to prevent and to eliminate all 

types of harassment. Supervisors and managers are to take prompt and immediate action to 

correct harassing behavior before it becomes severe and pervasive. Supervisors or managers 

must conduct an inquiry into any harassment allegations within 10 calendar days from receipt. 

If the manager or supervisor is unable to obtain all the facts, an investigation will be conducted. 

All information obtained from allegations of harassment must be kept confidential to the greatest

extent possible. Retaliating or discriminating against an employee for reporting, filing a 

complaint, or cooperating with an inquiry or investigation into allegations of harassment is 

prohibited and will result in appropriate administrative or disciplinary action. 

Civilian employees and military members who are subjected to harassment are

encouraged to report the allegations immediately to a supervisor, their next level management, 

and or to the Anti-Harassment Program Manager at DTRA Ft Belvoir Org Mailbox DTRA 

Anti- Harassment Program (dtra.belvoir.org.mbx.dtra-anti-harassment-program@mail.mil).

Where the harassment is based on discrimination, the employee may choose to 

additionally file an equal employment opportunity complaint with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EO) Office. The complaint must be filed within 45 days of the alleged incident(s) 

by contacting EO at DTRA Ft Belvoir Org Mailbox DTRA EEO and Military Equal Opportunity 

Complaints (dtra.belvoir.org.mbx.dtra-eeo-and-meo-complaints@mail.mil). 

Rebecca K.C. Hersman

Director
Distribution Statement A - Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 

John Robert “J.R.” Neal is the Inspector General (IG) for the Defense

Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). Mr. Neal is responsible for ensuring 

that DTRA’s worldwide mission activities are in compliance with 

applicable law, Executive Orders, policies, and regulations. Prior to his 

current assignment, Mr. Neal was the Deputy Inspector General at the 

Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, where he 

provided oversight of the command’s 36 field activities, directing all 

aspects of investigation, inspection, audit liaison, internal evaluations, 

and contract fraud assessment efforts. 

Mr. Neal retired from the U.S. Air Force in 2014 as a colonel after 26 

years of service. He received his commission in 1988 and served as a 

Navigator on B-52 and C-130 aircraft, amassing 3,600 flight hours, including combat and combat 

support in Operations DESERT STORM, UPHOLD DEMOCRACY, JOINT ENDEAVOR, and 

SOUTHERN WATCH. During the height of Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI 

FREEDOM he commanded Detachment 1, 730th Air Mobility Squadron at Diego Garcia, British Indian 

Ocean Territory.

Mr. Neal held key headquarter staff positions. While at the Pentagon, he was a Mobility Forces 

Programmer, in the Directorate of Programs, and an Executive Officer to the Deputy Chief of Staff, 

Strategic Plans and Programs. At Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, he was the Dean of Academic 

Affairs within Headquarters Squadron Officer College, then became the Executive Officer for the 

President and Commander of the Headquarters Air University. Mr. Neal spent most of 2009 in 

Afghanistan as Commander of the 655th Air Expeditionary Squadron at Forward Operating Base 

Sharana.

Mr. Neal’s final assignments in the U.S Air Force enabled him to garner valuable compliance and 

oversight experience. Following his Afghanistan deployment, he returned to the Headquarters Air 

University as the Inspector General. He culminated his career as the Inspector General for 

Headquarters U.S. Southern Command in Miami.

John Robert “J.R.” Neal

Inspector General
Mr. Neal earned a Bachelor in Electrical Engineering at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical 

(“A&T”) State University in Greensboro, and Master of Business Administration and Management

from Touro University International (now known as Trident University).
#### GREEN TREE SERVICING, L.L.C.; Walter Investment Management Corporation; Best Insurors, Incorporated; Mid State Capital, L.L.C.; Mid State Trust II; Mid State Trust III; Mid State Trust IV; Mid State Trust V; Mid State Trust VI; Mid State Trust VII; Mid State Trust VIII; Mid State Trust IX; Mid State Trust X; Mid State Trust XI; Wilmington Trust Company; Mid-State Capital Corporation 2004-1 Trust; Mid-State Capital Corporation 2005-1 Trust; Mid-State Capital Corporation 2006-1 Trust; Mid-State Capital Trust 2010-1, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Billy R. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-60105

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed 02/07/2018

Kaytie Michelle Pickett, Esq., Adam Stone, Jones Walker, L.L.P., Jackson, MS, for Plaintiffs-Appellees

Mitchell Dee Thomas, Esq., Logan & Mayo, P.A., Newton, MS, Peter Emmanuel Ferraro, Ferraro Law Firm, Austin, TX, Jeffery P. Reynolds, Esq., Senior Attorney, Jeffery P. Reynolds, P.A., Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KING, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction based upon binding precedent *622in a virtually identical case. *Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Charles,*872 F.3d 637 (5th Cir. 2017); *accord Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Campbell,*701 Fed.Appx. 383 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam); *Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Mathis,*701 Fed.Appx. 383 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *622the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
No. 11-10435.

#### Warren *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Total Polling Locations:

Election Day:7 1,220 

Early Voting:8 391 

Mail Ballots Transmitted10 Mail Ballots Returned11

1,679,267 1,531,001 (91.2% of 

transmitted) 

Mail Ballots Counted12 Mail Ballots Rejected13

1,521,052 (99.4% of 

returned)

9,949 (0.6% of 

returned) 

Mail Voting Policies 

No excuse is required for mail voting14

Does not conduct all-mail elections15

Some voters can register as permanent absentee16

EAVS Jurisdictions

351 

Total Registered Voters as of 

Nov. 3, 20201

4,812,909 

Registration Forms Received2*

2,476,295 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3*

608,691 

2020 EAVS Data Brief: Massachusetts

 Voter Registration

1.4%

2.5%

5.5%

23.2%

67.4%

Other

In-Person

Mail, Email, Fax

Motor Vehicle Dept.

Online

Source of Registration Applications4

 Voter Turnout  Election Technology

In-Person 

Election 

Day Voters 

1,256,443

34.3%

Mail Voters 

1,521,052

41.6%

In-Person 

Early Voters 

852,926

23.3%

Other Mode 

27,584

0.8%

Voters Participating By Mode5

351

293

58

0 0 0

Ballot

Marking

Device

Scanner Hand

Count

DRE w/o

VVPAT

DRE with

VVPAT

Electronic

Poll

Books

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9

 Mail Balloting

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov. 

The data shown are certified as final by state election authorities. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available, ” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2018 

general election to close of 

registration for 2020 general 

election. 

1 A1a of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a. InPerson is A4b. Online is A4c. 

Motor Vehicle Dept. is A4d. 

Other is the sum of A4e–A4l. 

Denominator is A3a. 

5 In-Person Election Day Voters 

is F1b. Mail Voters is F1d+F1g. 

In-Person Early Voters is F1f. 

Other Mode is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Denominator is sum of F1b–

F1h. 

6 F1a of EAVS. Denominator 

is citizen voting age 

population (CVAP). 

7 D3a of EAVS. 

8 D4a of EAVS. 

9 F3a–d, F5a, F6a, F7a, F8a, 

and F11a of EAVS. 

10 C1a of EAVS. 

11 C1b of EAVS. 

12 C3a of EAVS. 

13 C4a of EAVS. 

14Q17 of Policy Survey. 

15 Q18 and Q18a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

Turnout

72.3%

6