alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 455 (Redline/strikeout version).

In a separate submission reviewer provided EPA staff with data on 7 examples of modifications to fossil steam EGUs that resulted in unit capacity increases ranging from 8% to 20%. Reviewer hopes that these data will provide a rationale for strengthening th e technical basis for the “large modification” threshold. Reviewer found the technical basis for the 10% “large modification” threshold to be unclear given the current explanation and examples that are included in the Preamble, and suggests clarifying. In addition, Reviewer would be happy to consult with EPA to determine and strengthen the technical basis for an appropriate “large modification” threshold.

Reviewer also notes that the modifications undertaken at AmerenUE’s Labadie Plant were completed

over an 11 year period from 1992 to 2003, and that on an individual basis, each specific incremental modification likely resulted in a unit capacity change well below the 10% “large modification” threshold. As such, reviewer requests clarification as to whether a “large modification” must be completed in a particular period of time, and suggests that EPA clarify the time frame in which a modification must be completed in the Preamble. Reviewer also recommends limiting the actions that constitute a modification t o a short time period, and revisiting the “large modification” threshold accordingly.

In addition, reviewer notes that changing coal types from bituminous to subbituminous coal was one of the modifications carried out at the AmerenUE Labadie Plant. Review er found it confusing that changing coal type was included in this example of a “large modification” in the Preamble. If revi e wer’s understanding that a modification must be a physical change to the EGU that increases capacity and allows a unit to burn more fuel is correct, then changing coal type does not satisfy this criterion. As such, reviewer suggests that the reference to changing coal type be caveated with a clarification indicating that changing coal type does not constitute an EGU modification.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.5  


 
 

THIRD AMENDMENT
  TO
  TYCO INTERNATIONAL (US) INC.
  SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN    
    


	A.
	The
Tyco International (US) Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, as amended and restated as of April 1, 1999, and as amended by the First and Second Amendments
thereto, is hereby further amended as follows: 



        1.     Section 3
is amended by the addition of the following new Section 3(i). 



        "(i)    With
respect to each Participant who is listed on Appendix B to the Plan, the Company shall credit the amount set forth next to such Participant's name on the
effective date indicated on said Appendix B." 




        2.     A
new Appendix B as set forth in the attachment to this Third Amendment, is hereby added to and made a part of the Plan. 


	B.
	The
effective date of this amendment is May 1 2002.



	C.
	Except
as amended herein, the Plan is hereby confirmed in all other respects. 





        IN
WITNESS THEREFORE, this document has been signed on behalf of the Retirement Committee by its duly authorized representative this 30th day of July, 2002. 



	 	 	TYCO INTERNATIONAL (US) INC.

RETIREMENT COMMITTEE
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  ROBERT A. BENT      
	 	 	 	 	
 Robert A. Bent

Clerk, Retirement Committee










 
 

APPENDIX B    
    


 
  Special Credits under Section 3(i)    
    



	Participant
 
	 	Amount
	 	Date of Credit

	Dennis Crowley	 	$35,017.52

(US dollars)	 	July 1, 2002













QuickLinks


THIRD AMENDMENT TO TYCO INTERNATIONAL (US) INC. SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

APPENDIX B

Special Credits under Section 3(i)
No. 10-6882.

#### Bradley Shane Sheppard, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1036, 131 S. Ct. 583,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8760.

178 L. Ed. 2d 425,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 390 Fed. Appx. 265.
EXHIBIT 24

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Kenneth A. Paladino and Marvin
D. Genzer, and each of them, with full power of substitution, the undersigned's
true and lawful attorneys and agents to execute in his name and on his behalf,
in any and all capabilities, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of EDO Corporation
(the "Company"), a New York corporation, for the fiscal year ended December 31,
1996, and any and all other instruments which such attorneys and agents, or
either of them, deem necessary or advisable to enable the Company to comply
with the annual reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and the rules, regulations and requirements of the Securities and
Exchange Commission; and the undersigned hereby ratifies and confirms as his
own act and deed all that such attorneys and agents, and each of them, shall do
or cause to be done by virtue hereof. Either of such attorneys and agents shall
have, and may exercise, all of the powers hereby conferred.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have subscribed their signatures this 21st
day of March, 1997.

                                   Robert E. Allen
                                   Robert Alvine
                                   Mellon C. Baird
                                   George M. Ball
                                   Joseph F. Engelberger
                                   Frank A. Fariello
                                   William J. Frost
                                   Marvin D. Genzer
                                   Robert M. Hanisee
                                   Michael J. Hegarty
                                   Ira Kaplan
                                   J. Douglas Moore
                                   Kenneth A. Paladino
                                   George A. Strutz, Jr.
#### Donna Fabbricante, Appellant, v John Fabbricante, Respondent.

[49 NYS3d 701]

*781Appeal by the plaintiff, by permission, from an order to show cause of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pam Jackman Brown, J.), dated September 8, 2015. The order to show cause, insofar as appealed from, granted the defendant’s application to temporarily restrain the pláintiff from transferring the parties’ child from his middle school in Queens County to a middle school in Nassau County for the 2015-2016 eighth-grade school year. By decision and order on motion dated October 1, 2015, this Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to stay enforcement of the temporary restraining order contained in the order to show cause, inter alia, pending hearing and determination of the appeal.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

“Generally, courts may not consider ‘questions which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances’ ” *(Matter of Bederman v Bederman,*123 AD3d 1029, 1029 [2014], quoting *Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; *see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki,*100 NY2d 801, 810-811 [2003]). Here, the sole issue raised by the mother on her appeal is whether the stipulation of custody and parenting entered into by the parties in 2014 required the parties’ son to complete his 2015-2016 eighth grade school year at his middle school in Queens, or whether it permitted him to attend eighth grade at a high school near his current home in Williston Park in Nassau County. However, since the child has now completed eighth grade, and since the mother does not raise any arguments regarding the child’s enrollment beyond the 2015-2016 school year, the issues raised on this appeal have been rendered academic *(see Matter of Bederman v Bederman,*123 AD3d at 1029; *see also Matter of Raven K. [Adam C.],*130 AD3d 622, 623-624 [2015]). Moreover, this case does not warrant invocation of the exception to the mootness doctrine *(see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki,*100 NY2d at 810-811; *Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d at 714-715; *Matter of Bederman v Bederman,*123 AD3d at 1029). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Motion by the appellant, inter alia, to strike stated portions of the respondent’s brief on an appeal from an order to show cause of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 8, 2015, on the ground that they refer to matter dehors the record. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated Janu*782ary 6, 2017, that branch of the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or relation thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the branch of the appellant’s motion which is to strike stated portions of the respondent’s brief is denied as academic. Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.
# DLA Energy employee optimistic about six-month rotation program

/ Published Nov. 4, 2015
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia,
# Marion Whicker

/ Published June 19, 2022

Marion Whicker assumed duties as the executive deputy to the Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command on June 19, 2022. As EDCG, Ms. Whicker is responsible for materiel life cycle management, acquisition support, personnel and resource management, industrial base operations and enterprise integration for a globally reaching command with 175,000 military, civilian and contractor employees, impacting all 50 states and 152 countries.

She previously served as the Executive Director of the Integrated Logistics Support Center, U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command. In this position, Whicker oversaw the readiness of the majority of Army maintenance, fielding, new equipment training, supply chain management and system readiness.

From June 2020 to May 2021, Whicker served in a temporary assignment as Deputy Chief for Supply, Production and Distribution for Operation Warp Speed, the federal government’s COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics response. Whicker was appointed to the Senior Executive Service in June 2018.

Whicker’s other previous assignments include: Deputy Chief of Staff, TACOM, March 2015-February 2017; Deputy to the Executive Director, ILSC, TACOM, January 2009-March 2015; Director, Logistics Integration Directorate, ILSC, TACOM, August 2008-January 2009; Director, Ground Combat Support Directorate, ILSC, TACOM, January 2007-August 2008; and Director, Deployment Equipment Directorate, ILSC, TACOM, February 2006-January 2007.

Whicker received her masters degree in Science Administration (Leadership) from Central Michigan University in 2014. She also received a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from Iowa Wesleyan College in 1984.

Whicker’s awards include: Department of the Army Superior Civilian Service Medal - Executive Director TACOM ILSC, June 2022; Secretary of Defense Medal for Exceptional Service - Operation Warp Speed, May 2021; Armed Forces Civilian Service Medal - Operation Warp Speed, May 2021; Superior Civilian Service Award, TACOM Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC) - Continuous Process Improvement Program - 2020; Women In Defense (WID) Excellence in Leadership Award, 2017; Superior Civilian Service Award, TACOM LCMC - Deputy Chief of Staff TACOM, 2017; Superior Civilian Service Award, TACOM LCMC - Support to CG, 2016; Superior Civilian Service Award, TACOM LCMC - BRAC, 2009; Samuel Sharpe Award, 2015; Special Act, ILSC, Aug 2009, Succession Planning Black belt Project, 2009.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 1 0370 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:13

- c v - 80517

- WJZ

- 1

ROSWITHA ANN SAVOIE , Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus RIC BRADSHAW, SHERIFF, JEROME GOLDEN CENTER, et al , Defendant s - Appellant s .

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( September 17, 2015 ) Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR , and ANDERSON , Circu it Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-10370 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 1 of 32 Roswitha Savoie appeals the dismissal of her suit on her own behalf against various defendants in the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office and the Jerome Golden Center for violation s of her constitutional rights. 1 The district court dismissed Savoie’s case after she sought to proceed in forma pauperis on behalf of her minor son. The magistrate judge, having previously granted Savoie’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on her own behalf, had recommended that her m otion on behalf of her son be denied. However, the district court, stating that it was approving, adopting, and ratifying the Report and Recommendation, denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis
on behalf of her son and also dismissed the entire case . The court did not explain its decision ; and the Report and Recommendation had not addressed the merits of Savoie’s claims on her own behalf. In fact, as mentioned earlier, the magistrate judge had granted Savoie’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on her own behalf. A district court is free to “accept, reject, or modify, in whole o r in part” the magistrate judge’ s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In other words, the court is not bound to the decision of the magistrate judge. Bu t when a district court fails to sufficiently explain its rulings, we will remand the

1 Savoie had also filed related claims on behalf of her minor son, Savoie

- Elston. Her appeal of the district court’s order dismissing the claims on behalf of her son was dismissed by order of this Court dated August 5, 2014.

Case: 14-10370 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 2 of 33 case. Danley v. Allen , 480 F.3d 1090, 1091

– 92 (11th Cir. 2007). Here, there is no explanation of the dismissal, which deprives this court of the ability to review. And, because the magistrate judge had previously granted in forma pauperis status to Savoie on her own, deeming the amendments she made to her complaint satisfactory , the decision to dismiss needs explanation . Therefore, we vacate the
district court’s decisio n dis missing this case and remand to the district court for further proceedings. VACATED and REMANDED. Case: 14-10370 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 3 of 3
# C_2013226EN.01000501.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 30 May 2013 — Isabelle Gielen v Ministerraad

(Case C-299/13)

(2013/C 226/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Isabelle Gielen

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministerraad

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 5(2) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC (1) of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital to be interpreted as precluding the taxation of the conversion — prescribed by law — of bearer securities into registered securities or dematerialised securities, and, if so, can such a tax be justified on the basis of Article 6 of that directive?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6860

LAFAYETTE T. EDWARDS, SR., Petitioner - Appellant,

v. ISLE OF WIGHT CIRCUIT COURT, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00396-GBL-TCB)

Submitted: October 17, 2008 Decided: October 29, 2008

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lafayette T. Edwards, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lafayette T. Edwards, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failing to exhaust state remedies. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edwards 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 10-88.

#### Geographic Expeditions, Inc., Petitioner v. Elena Lhotka, Individually and as Executor, et al.

562 U.S. 893, 131 S. Ct. 288,

178 L. Ed. 2d 141,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6305.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, denied.

Same case below, 181 Cal. App. 4th 816, 104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 844.
#### People v Leduc

3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1305 (Clinton)

denied 8/18/16 (Rivera, J.)
EXHIBIT 23

 

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 2-86285, 333-21349, 333-21351, 333-45315, and 333-62196) on Form S-8 of The Eastern Company of our reports dated March 5, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of The Eastern Company and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of The Eastern Company, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 29, 2007. 

 

 

/s/ UHY LLP

 

Hartford, Connecticut

March 7, 2008

 

 

 

63
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hector Watson, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 544]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), rendered January 8, 2016, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, which forecloses his claims that the sentence court misperceived its discretion, and that the sentence was excessive. The oral colloquy, in which the court separated the right to appeal from the rights automatically given up by pleading guilty, along with the written waiver, satisfied the requirements for a valid waiver *(see People v Bryant,*28 NY3d 1094 [2016]).

Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, he failed to preserve his claim that the court failed to exercise its sentencing discretion *(see People v Fishman,*14 AD3d 411 [1st Dept 2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 853 [2005]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Even if the court mistakenly believed that it had no discretion to impose a lower sentence than called for under the plea agreement, there would be no need to remand for resentencing because the court expressed no reservations about that sentence *(see id.).*On the contrary, the court stated that it was not “inclined” to impose a lower sentence in any event.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Tom, J.P., Friedman, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Otis Boone, Appellant.

Submitted March 27, 2017;

decided March 30, 2017

Motion by American Psychological Association for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.

Judge Wilson taking no part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                         594,412
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  711,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                    45,566
<INVENTORY>                                    300,238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,611,936
<PP&E>                                       1,712,796
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,002,630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,314,885
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,055,524
<BONDS>                                        440,734
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       231,929
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,586,698
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,314,885
<SALES>                                      5,988,315
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,988,315
<CGS>                                        4,392,978
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,447,611
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (140,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,870
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (161,270)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (161,270)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        


                               

</TABLE>