alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39892-39893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19737]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Air Act 
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

    In accordance with 28 CFR 50.7, the Department of Justice gives 
notice that a proposed consent decree in United States v. Refined 
Metals Corporation, Civil Action No. IP 90-2077-C (S.D. Ind.), was 
lodged with the United States District Court for the Southern District 
of Indiana, on July 14, 1998. The proposed consent decree would resolve 
the United States' civil claims against the Refined Metals Corporation 
under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., and the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., for 
certain of its operations at its facility in Beech Grove, Indiana.
    Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, defendant Refined 
Metals Corporation will comply with all applicable requirements of the 
CAA and RCRA, perform closure and corrective actions at its plant, and, 
in the event the company recommences operations, install air pollution 
control equipment that will prevent emissions of lead and particulate 
matter in excess of the State Implementation Plan limits. In addition, 
the Decree provides for the payment of a $210,000 civil penalty, 
including

[[Page 39893]]

interest from February 26, 1998, and stipulated penalties for failure 
to comply with the CAA, RCRA, and the Decree.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should 
refer to United States v. Refined Metals Corporation, Civil Action No. 
IP 90-2077-C (S.D. Ind.) and DOJ Reference No. 90-11-2-469.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at: (1) the office of 
the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, U.S. 
Courthouse 5th Floor, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indian 46204, 
317-226-6333; (2) the United States Environmental Protection Agency 
(Region 5), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590; 
and (3) the U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th 
Floor, Washington, DC 2005-202-624-0892. In requesting a copy, please 
refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of 
$70.00 (pages at 25 cents per page reproduction costs), made payable to 
the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 98-19737 Filed 7-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
No. 11-6329.

#### Armando Contreras-Villegas, aka Armando Contreras Villegas, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 959, 132 S. Ct. 442,

181 L. Ed. 2d 287,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7232.

October 11, 2011.

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

Same case below, 428 Fed. Appx. 362.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6667

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PRISCILLA LYDIA TURNER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00133-MR-DLH-1)

Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: October 26, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Priscilla Lydia Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Priscilla Lydia Turner appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to 

modify the restitution payments she is required to make through the Bureau of Prisons’ 

Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues 

raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Turner’s informal brief 

does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Turner has forfeited 

appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th 

Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our 

review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 11-5993.

#### Anthony L. Marlar, Petitioner v. Timothy Riley, Warden.

565 U.S. 982, 132 S. Ct. 504,

181 L. Ed. 2d 355,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7753.

October 31, 2011.

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

Same case below, 432 Fed. Appx. 182.
ex10-25.htm


EXHIBIT 10.25


 


AMENDMENT NO. 3


 


TO THE ACCELERIZE NEW MEDIA, INC.


 


STOCK OPTION PLAN


 


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


 


As adopted by resolution of the


 


Board of Directors on March 27, 2012


 


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


 







1.           Section 3 of the Accelerize New Media, Inc. Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended by deleting the number "15,000,000" and inserting the number "22,500,000" in its stead, wherever the same appears.







2.           Section 12 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting Section 12 in its entirety and replacing it with the following:







“12. EFFECTIVE DATE, DURATION, AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION OF PLAN







The Plan shall be effective as of December 15, 2006, subject to ratification by (a) the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of capital stock present, or represented, and entitled to vote thereon (voting as a single class) at a duly held meeting of the stockholders of the Company or (b) by the written consent of the holders of a majority (or such greater percentage as may be prescribed under the Company’s charter, by-laws and applicable state law) of the capital stock of the Company entitled to vote thereon (voting as a single class), in either case within twelve months after such date. Options that are conditioned upon the ratification of the Plan by the stockholders may be granted prior to ratification. The Board may grant Options under the Plan from time to time until the close of business on December 15, 2016. The Board may at any time amend the Plan; provided, however, that without approval of the Company’s stockholders there shall be no change in the Plan that requires stockholder approval under applicable law.  No amendment shall adversely affect outstanding Options without the consent of the Optionee. The Plan may be terminated at any time by action of the Board, but any such termination will not terminate any Option then outstanding without the consent of the Optionee.”







3.           Except as hereinabove amended, the provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
If there were a 

vaccine against 

cancer, wouldn’t 

you get it for 

your kids?

HPV vaccine is

cancer prevention. 

Talk to the doctor 

about vaccinating

your 11–12 year old

sons and daughters 

against HPV.

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/teens

Distributed by:

CS249946-A
MICHAEL HOFFMAN

is inducted into the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia Hall of Fame this eighth day of November 

2006 for his continuous outstanding mission support from 1972 through 2003. During his 35 years 

of Federal Service, Mr. Hoffman directed numerous programs which brought acclaim to DSCP and 

were instrumental to its success. He consistently demonstrated the highest levels of skill, creativity 

and leadership, taking on challenges and solving problems. He was a brilliant manager and 

executive who exemplified the best in what DLA is and what DLA does. His dedication and 

commitment were not only to supporting the military mission, but also to ensuring the welfare and 

success of his fellow employees at all levels. Throughout his government career he placed the 

customer above all else, never forgetting that the only reason we exist as an entity is to support 

the Warfighter. His abilities were respected by his colleagues both in and outside of the 

Government. Mr. Hoffman led his staff by example, always retaining his mission focus and sense of 

humor. His legacy will live on forever at DSCP. 

Hall of Fame Inductees Page 1 of 1

https://www.troopsupport.dla.mil/about_us/hoffman2.htm 1/21/2016
Unassociated Document


 











Exhibit 10.14












Z3 Enterprises/HPEV, Inc.

















ADDENDUM TO CONSULTING CONTRACT WITH INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR DATED APRIL 1, 2011 BETEEEN HPEV,INC., AND SUMMIT MANAGEMENT CONSULTING, INC.







To: Summit Management Consulting, Inc., Contractor







Effective January 1, 2012 the  consulting fee for the services of Quentin Ponder will be increased from $5,000 per month to $7,500 per month which may be requested any time during the month.







This increase is the result of his currently serving as an interim President & CEO of Z3 Enterprises.







/S/ Quentin Ponder


Quentin Ponder


President & CEO


Dated January 2, 2012
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-10927

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN JOSÉ PAREDES-ESCOBEDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:00-CR-33-Y

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

April 12, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan José Paredes-Escobedo appeals his conviction and

sentence for one count of illegal reentry of a previously

deported alien pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2). Paredes

argues that his plea was rendered involuntary by the district

court’s failure to admonish him that the “aggravated felony”

provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) stated an element of the

charge against him that had to be proved to a jury. Pursuant to

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 243 (1998),

this element did not have to be proved to a jury. Accordingly,
No. 00-10927

-2-

this argument lacks merit. Paredes acknowledges that AlmendarezTorres controls, but he raises this issue to preserve it for

review by the Supreme Court. Because Paredes has not shown error

on the part of the district court, the judgment of that court is

AFFIRMED.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3445 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend the work geographic 

index floor under the Medicare program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2019 

Ms. FINKENAUER (for herself and Mr. SMITH of Nebraska) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend 

the work geographic index floor under the Medicare program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE WORK GEOGRAPHIC INDEX 

4 FLOOR UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM. 

5 Section 1848(e)(1)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 1395w–4(e)(1)(E)) is amended by striking ‘‘2020’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘2023’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
No. 11-5486.

#### Charles McKinley, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 910, 132 S. Ct. 318,

181 L. Ed. 2d 196,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5827.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 11-6250.

#### Roy Mitchell, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 957, 132 S. Ct. 437,

181 L. Ed. 2d 284,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7252.

October 11, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $6.35 CWT 0.965 $6.1278

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.6074 LB 3.5 $9.1259

Class I Price $15.2537

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $5.98 CWT 0.965 $5.7707

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.4777 LB 3.5 $8.6720

Class I Price $14.4427

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $0.8110

(4) Price change per gallon $0.0697

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.0349

Price change per quart $0.0174

Price change per pint $0.0087

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.0063

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.0052

Price change per half pint $0.0044

(6) Price adjustment per gallon $0.07

Price adjustment per half gallon $0.03

Price adjustment per quart $0.02

Price adjustment per pint $0.01

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.01

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.01

Price adjustment per half pint $0.00

**No price adjustment is required if the price change per-gallon, in either direction,

is not equal to or greater than +/-$0.0100 (See paragraph (f)(1) of the clause). 

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positives or increases. 

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: June 3, 2018
No. 11-450.

#### Lane Steven Snider, Petitioner v. Virginia.

565 U.S. 1062, 132 S. Ct. 780,

181 L. Ed. 2d 488,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8574.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
   This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from the
   financial  statements of Farrel  Corporation  as of 12/31/99 and for the year
   then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000034645
<NAME>                                         FARREL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1,000
<CURRENCY>                                             US$

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                               6,069
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       15,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                           185
<INVENTORY>                                         11,975
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    34,445
<PP&E>                                              24,181
<DEPRECIATION>                                      13,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      48,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               16,930
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                61
<OTHER-SE>                                          25,803
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        48,862
<SALES>                                             74,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    74,054
<CGS>                                               55,898
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       55,898
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    14,832
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     449
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      2,875
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1,115
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  1,760
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         1,760
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.32






</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 337 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 337

 To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to withdraw the outer 
 Continental Shelf in the Mid-Atlantic planning area from disposition, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2019

 Mr. McEachin (for himself, Mr. Jones, Mrs. Luria, Mr. Price of North 
     Carolina, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Scott of Virginia, and Mr. Beyer) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to withdraw the outer 
 Continental Shelf in the Mid-Atlantic planning area from disposition, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defend our Coast Act''.

SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL FROM DISPOSITION OF MID-ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL 
              SHELF.

    Section 12 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
1341) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) Withdrawal From Disposition of Mid-Atlantic Outer Continental 
Shelf.--The Secretary may not issue a lease for the exploration, 
development, or production of oil or gas on the outer Continental Shelf 
in the Mid-Atlantic planning area.''.
                                 <all>
```
(1) Adjusting Price $18.34 CWT

(2) Base Price $17.69 CWT

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $0.65

(4) Price change per gallon $0.0559

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.0279

Price change per quart $0.0140

Price change per pint $0.0070

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.0052

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.0044

Price change per half pint $0.0035

(6) Price adjustment per gallon $0.06

Price adjustment per half gallon $0.03

Price adjustment per quart $0.01

Price adjustment per pint $0.01

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.01

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.00

Price adjustment per half pint $0.00

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positive or increases.

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032 Alt. I)

Based on California Dept. of Food and Agriculture Announcement of Minimum Prices

 Effective Date: Dec. 6, 2015
No. 11-6933.

#### Milton D. Plummer, Petitioner v. E. K. McDaniel, Warden, et al.

565 U.S. 1097, 132 S. Ct. 853,

181 L. Ed. 2d 556,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8977.

December 12, 2011.

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

Same case below, 444 Fed. Appx. 177.
C

Appendix C

Appendix C-10

Additional Resources for Vaccine Information Statements

Below is a list of additional resources for Vaccine Information Statements (VISs) as recommended

y Vaccine Information Statements (VISs): https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/index.h

y Current VISs: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/current-vis.h

y About VISs: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/about/index.h

y Dates of Current and Past Vaccine Information Materials: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-dates.h

y Barcodes on Vaccine Information Statements: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/barcodes.h
# Box4_Table 10 Nativity
No. 11-6129.

#### Eric Glenn Lane, Petitioner v. North Carolina.

565 U.S. 1081, 132 S. Ct. 816,

181 L. Ed. 2d 529,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8690.

December 5, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina denied.

Same case below, 365 N.C. 7, 707 S.E.2d 210.
No. 11-5788.

#### Ali Amirnazmi, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 921, 132 S. Ct. 347,

181 L. Ed. 2d 218,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6987.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 645 F.3d 564.
[Cite as Patel v. Crawford, 133 Ohio St.3d 138, 2012-Ohio-4229.] 

PATEL ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CRAWFORD, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 

[Cite as Patel v. Crawford, 133 Ohio St.3d 138, 2012-Ohio-4229.] 

Mandamus—Petition sought to compel a judge to hear motion for sanctions—

Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition for writ affirmed.

(No. 2012-0728—Submitted September 12, 2012—Decided September 19, 2012.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Belmont County, 

Nos. 11 BE 23 and 11 BE 24, 2012-Ohio-1688. 

_____________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 

petition of appellants, Arvind and Bharati Patel, for a writ of mandamus. The 

Patels sought the writ to compel appellee, Judge Dale A. Crawford, sitting by 

assignment in Longwell v. Patel, Belmont C.P. No. 03-CV-036, to hear appellant 

Arvind Patel’s motion for sanctions “prior to presiding over the trial” in the case.1 

Appellants could not establish either a clear legal right to the requested 

extraordinary relief or a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of Judge 

Crawford to provide it because the case was dismissed before any trial could 

occur. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 

1. The court of appeals also dismissed appellants’ claims for a continuance, to give them time to 

retain counsel and to appoint a translator to aid appellant Bharati Patel at trial, but appellants do 

not claim any error in the court’s holding on these claims in this appeal. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

 Arvind and Bharati Patel, pro se. 

 Chris Berhalter, Belmont County Prosecuting Attorney, and David K. 

Liberati, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

______________________