alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# National Police Week spotlight: Technical Sergeant Robert Ames   

/ Published May 15, 2023
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
*Editor’s Note: May 14-20 is National Police Week. This is a part of a series of spotlights highlighting members of the Defense Logistics Agency Police Force who work 24/7 to protect DLA people and property.*

**Your name:** Technical Sergeant Robert Ames   

**Job title and location:** Police officer for DLA Distribution in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania.

**What inspired you to become a police officer?** The ability to help someone at any given moment. 

**When did you join DLA’s police force and what did you do before you got here?**I joined the DLA police force in August 2022. I have been in the Air Force for 13 years and am a former corrections officer for the state of Pennsylvania and security guard at the U.S. Army War College.  

**Describe your typical workday in 2-3 sentences.** My typical workday consists of working at a gate, whether it be at the main gate or truck gate, where I help process individuals onto the installation. 

**Describe the most dangerous situation you’ve encountered on duty.** The most dangerous situation I have encountered while on duty at this installation was when I dealt with an individual who wasn't the most cooperative. I thought the situation was going to go south, but thanks to the team I was working with it didn't. 

**What’s the hardest part of being a police officer and why?** The hardest part of being a police officer is dealing with complacency. Depending on the shift you work, you might not deal with situations that other shifts encounter, which can make it hard at times. 

**What do you like most about your job and why?** I like learning. No matter how many years I’ve been in this career field, I’m constantly learning something new. To me, that's one of the things that makes this job so great. 

**Do you have any funny stories you can share from your time protecting people and property?** There was a time when I was brand new to this career field, and my supervisor at the time gave me the task of finding the flux capacitor. I took that task very seriously. So, I spent a good amount of time going from patrol to patrol, looking for the flux capacitor. (The flux capacitator made time travel possible in the movie “Back to the Future.”)

**What’s the biggest security infraction you see employees make?** The biggest security infraction I see people make is not communicating properly. 

**What are you passionate about outside of work?** I’m passionate about spending time with my family as well as staying physically fit.
No. 10-5678.

#### Satrohan Singh, Petitioner v. Philip Heath, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 1125, 131 S. Ct. 853,

178 L. Ed. 2d 584,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9624.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 965, 131 S. Ct. 461, 178 L. Ed. 2d 293, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8030.
# C_2015221EN.01000902.xml

| 6.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Rubinum v Commission

(Case T-201/13) (1)

1

((Public health - Food safety - Additive for use in animal nutrition - Preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi - Commission decision to suspend the authorisations of that preparation - Risk to health - Error of Law - Precautionary principle))

(2015/C 221/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rubinum, SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: C. Bittner and P.-C. Scheel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, B. Schima and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 288/2013 of 25 March 2013 concerning the suspension of the authorisations of the preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi (NCIMB 40112/CNCM I-1012) as provided for by Regulations (EC) No 256/2002, (EC) No 1453/2004, (EC) No 255/2005, (EC) No 1200/2005, (EC) No 166/2008 and (EC) No 378/2009 (OJ 2013 L 86, p. 15).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rubinum, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rubinum, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.

1

---
Exhibit 10-7.3



DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION

EXECUTIVE CASH BALANCE
PLAN

(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 1999)



AMENDMENT 3



Pursuant to Section 8 of the Duke Energy Corporation Executive Cash Balance Plan, as amended (Plan), Duke Energy Corporation
(Corporation) hereby amends the Plan, effective January 1, 2001, in the following respects only:



|1. | The Companys Policy Committee is substituted for references to the Management Committee wherever appearing in the Plan.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 2.3 of the Plan, are amended in their entireties to read as follows:
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (iii) | the consummation of a merger, consolidation, reorganization or similar corporate transaction, which has been approved by the shareholders of Duke Energy Corporation, whether or not
Duke Energy Corporation is the surviving corporation in such transaction, other than a merger, consolidation, or reorganization that would result in the voting securities of Duke Energy Corporation outstanding immediately prior thereto continuing to
represent (either by remaining outstanding or by being converted into voting securities of the surviving entity) at least fifty percent (50%) of the combined voting power of the voting securities of Duke Energy Corporation (or such surviving entity)
outstanding immediately after such merger, consolidation or reorganization.
| | ----- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (iv) | the consummation of (A) the sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of Duke Energy Corporation or (B) a complete liquidation or
dissolution of Duke Energy
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





---

| | Corporation, which has been approved by the shareholders of Duke Energy Corporation;
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment to the Plan is executed on behalf of the
Corporation this 21stday of December, 2000.



DUKE ENERGY CORPORATIONBy:

/s/    CHRISTOPHER C.
ROLFEIts:

Vice PresidentCorporate Human Resources
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REGISTER VOL. 62 • NO. 20 MAY 15,2015 

DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

SUBMITTAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO EPA AS A SIP REVISION 

Public Comment Period and Hearing on Interstate Transport Provisions for the 

1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Standards 

Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on June 22, 2015, at 5:00p.m. in 

Room 555 at 1200 First Street, N.E., 5th Floor, in Washington, D.C. The District is 

proposing to submit a negative declaration to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to address the interstate transport of pollution to meet "infrastructure" 

requirements of the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.s) 

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The District Department of the 

Environment (DDOE) will accept comments on the proposed negative declaration until 

the public hearing date on June 22, 2015. This hearing provides interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the proposed negative declaration as well as the proposed 

submittal of the negative declaration to EPA as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision. Once finalized, the negative declaration will be submitted to the EPA as a SIP 

Revision in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 5l. 

The proposed negative declaration is available for public review during normal business 

hours at the offices of the District Department of the Environment (DDOE), 1200 First 

Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20002, and on-line at http://ddoe.dc.gov. Interested parties 

wishing to testify at this hearing must submit in writing their names, addresses, telephone 

numbers, and affiliation, if any, to Mr. William Bolden at DDOE by 4:00p.m. on June 

22, 2015. Interested parties may also submit written comments to Ms. Jessica Daniels, 

DDOE Air Quality Division, at 1200 First Street, NE, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20002, 

or by email at jessica.daniels@dc.gov. No written or email comments will be accepted 

after June 22, 2015. For more information or to find out if the public hearing has been 

canceled, contact Ms. Jessica Daniels at 202-741-0862 or by email. 

006156
# C_2013274EN.01003103.xml

| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/31

---

Action brought on 9 July 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-69/13)

2013/C 274/52

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to calculate accredited pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new GIPs.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision to calculate the years of pensionable service recognised for the purposes of that transfer into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions (‘GIPs’) in Article 11(2) in Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision to calculate the years of pensionable service recognised for the purposes of that transfer into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions (‘GIPs’) in Article 11(2) in Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
Quizá no esté muy 

alto, pero si se cae, 

podría ser mortal. 

En 2015, el 16.9% 

de todas las caídas 

mortales fueron 

desde alturas de 10 

pies o menos.

¡Únase a la campaña para acabar las caídas en la construcción!

www.stopconstructionfalls.com 

¿A qué altura es MORTAL? Altura de 

las caídas 

Porcentaje 

de muertes 

23.5%

PLANIFIQUE. PROPORCIONE. ADIESTRE.

A más de 30'

26' – 30'

21' – 25'

16' – 20' 

11' – 15' 

6' – 10'

A menos de 6'

9.6%

14.6%

15.2%

20.2%

13.6%

3.3%

Fuente: Lesiones laborales fatales sufridas por los trabajadores de la industria de la construcción debido a caídas a un nivel inferior, 

2011-2015. Oficina de Estadísticas Laborales de Lesiones, Enfermedades y Fatalidades (IIF). Consultado en marzo de 2017.
July 15, 2009

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Economic Feasibility of Testing Periodic Brick Kilns

FROM: Tom Walton

Economist

ABCG (C439-02)

TO: Jeff Telander

 Engineer

MMG (D243-02)

This document addresses the potential economic impact of a requirement to test periodic 

brick kilns. It uses available data provided by our EPA contractor on the cost of testing 

and capacity utilization and data provided by the Brick Industry Association MACT 

Task Force in a May 8 email.

Cost to sales is a good way to begin assessing impact. To do this a value of $117.20 per 

ton from the industry email was combined with the costs and production estimates. 

Because the costs vary with the stack configuration at the plant level and the production 

varies from kiln to kiln the costs to sales numbers vary widely. Annualized testing cost 

per kiln varies from $1,325 to $12,130. Production per kiln varies from 3 tons per year to 

31,139 tons per year.

Number of 

Kilns

Annualized Testing Costs 

as a percentage of Sales

18 Less than 1%

26 Between 1% and 3%

5 Between 3% and 5%

46 Between 10% and 100%

2 Greater than 100%

While the estimates involve uncertainty about the sales, production, and capacity 

utilization, the conclusion that the testing is not economically feasible for most of the 

kilns is quite clear. 53 of the 97 kilns have estimated cost to sales percentages of over 

3%. Two of the kilns have estimates of over 700%. 

While individual periodic kiln profit information is not available the following illustrative 

analysis is provided using profit numbers of 12% of sales as suggested as typical for a 

good year in the May 6 email from the Brick Industry Association.
Number 

of Kilns

Annualized Testing Costs 

as a percentage of Profit

2 Less than 1%

16 Between 1% and10%

45 Between 10% and 50%

31 Between 50% and 100%

1 Between 100% and 

1000%

2 Greater than 1000%
1

Lee, Anita

From: Clancy, Maeve

Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:15 PM

To: kmorgan@tejontribe.net

Cc: office@tejontribe.net; wlord@tejontribe.net; Lee, Anita; Hong, Jeanhee; Drake, Kerry; Tax, 

Wienke

Subject: Available times next week to meet with EPA Region 9 Air Division on San Joaquin Valley 

reclassifications

Hello Chairwoman Morgan,

I spoke with your assistant yesterday and she told me that tomorrow will not work for you to discuss your recent letter

regarding San Joaquin Valley reclassifications. Next week, Associate Air Division Director Kerry Drake has availability for a

conference call on Monday the 23rd at 11am, Tuesday the 24th at 1pm, or Thursday the 26th at 10am or 1pm. Friday the

27th he is available any time before 3:30pm. Please let us know what time works best for you. We would like to speak

with you soon so that we can address any questions you have before we finalize our action. Thank you.

Maeve Clancy

EPA Region 9

Air Planning Office

415‐947‐4105, clancy.maeve@epa.gov
1 Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:07 PM

To: 'Info@uvt.email'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - Unmanned Vehicle Technologies, LLC

Dear Mr. Fink:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

‐ 2015

‐ 1124). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

* Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e.

‐ fixed

‐ wing,rotorcraft, lighter

‐ than

‐ air) for the

proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload). This

information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

.

Please submit the additional information (non

‐ proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e

‐ mail to

333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information

described above by 7/1/2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying

you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

‐ 9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202

‐ 267

‐ 9521
Exhibit 24.1



POWER OF ATTORNEY



KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below does hereby make, constitute and appoint Stevan R. Schott, Susan S. Mullins
and Douglas L. Rabuzzi, and each of them severally, such persons true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, for such person and in such persons name, place and stead, to sign the Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, and any and all amendments thereto, and to file such Annual Report on Form 10-K and any and all amendments thereto with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and does hereby grant unto such
attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite or necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as said person might or could
do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact and agents and each of them may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.



WITNESS THE DUE EXECUTION HEREOF as of February 26, 2004.



|                         |  |  |  |                         
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------------
|/s/    Doreen E. Boyce   |  |  |  | /s/    David M. Kelly   
|                         |  |  |  |                         
|Doreen E. Boyce          |  |  |  | David M. Kelly          
|                         |  | 
|                         |  |  |  |                         
|/s/    Robert P. Bozzone |  |  |  | /s/    Morgan K. OBrien
|                         |  |  |  |                         
|Robert P. Bozzone        |  |  |  | Morgan K. OBrien       
|                         |  | 
|                         |  |  |  |                         
|/s/    Charles C. Cohen  |  |  |  | /s/    Steven S. Rogers 
|                         |  |  |  |                         
|Charles C. Cohen         |  |  |  | Steven S. Rogers        
|                         |  | 
|                         |  |  |  |                         
|/s/    Sigo Falk         |  |  |  | /s/    John D. Turner   
|                         |  |  |  |                         
|Sigo Falk                |  |  |  | John D. Turner          
|                         |  | 
|                         |  |  |  |                         
|/s/    Joseph C. Guyaux  |  |  |  |                         
|                         |  |  |  |                         
|Joseph C. Guyaux         |  |  |  |
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Magma Design
Automation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rajeev Madhavan, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Rajeev MadhavanRajeev Madhavan Chief Executive Officer November 14, 2003




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 10-6552.

#### Joe Louis Brooks, Petitioner v. John Robert Smith, Mayor of the City of Meridian, Mississippi, et al.

562 U.S. 1067, 131 S. Ct. 650,

178 L. Ed. 2d 488,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9370.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 397.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17336]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

June 23, 1998.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before July 15, 1998 
to be assured of consideration.

SPECIAL REQUEST: In order to conduct the surveys described below in a 
timely manner, the Department of the Treasury is requesting that the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and approve this 
information collection by July 2, 1998. To obtain a copy of this study, 
please contact the Internal Revenue Service Clearance Officer at the 
address listed below.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1432.
    Project Number: M:SP:V 98-013-G.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: Internal Revenue Service's Fourth Annual Survey of 
Contractors.
    Description: The purpose of this survey is to attempt to obtain 
contractor information about the ways the Internal Revenue Service 
(IRS) can improve its contracting. An opinion survey is expected to 
provide the information needed.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 250.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 7 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 250 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-17336 Filed 6-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00398

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF J.T.S.M., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 25th District Court of Lavaca County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 479

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

app eal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. No costs are assessed, as appellant filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. February 9 , 2023
No. 10-7563.

#### Jeffrey Angel Romero, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 1155, 131 S. Ct. 949,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 119.

178 L. Ed. 2d 784,

January 10, 2011.

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