alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 State

          - [Public Notice 6540] 

The U.S. National Commission for UNESCO will hold a meeting by conference call on Wednesday, March 25, 2009, beginning at 11 a.m. Eastern Time. The open portion of the call should last approximately fifteen minutes and will address the timing of the Commission's Annual Meeting and the 181st UNESCO Executive Board. Additional topic areas that relate to UNESCO may be discussed as needed. The Commission will accept brief oral comments from members of the public during the open portion of this conference call. The public comment period will be limited to approximately ten minutes in total with three minutes allowed per speaker. Members of the public who wish to present oral comments or listen to the conference call must make arrangements with the Executive Secretariat of the National Commission by March 23, 2009. 

The second portion of the teleconference meeting will be closed to the public to allow the Commission to discuss applications for the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO Laura W. Bush Traveling Fellowship, a fellowship funded through privately donated funds. This call will be closed pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) because it is likely to involve discussion of information of a personal nature regarding the relative merits of individual applicants where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

                    For more information contact Kelly Siekman, Deputy Director of the Office of UNESCO Affairs, Washington, DC 20037. Telephone: (202) 663-0026; Fax: (202) 663-0035; e-mail:                     *DCUNESCO@state.gov*.                 

Dated: March 4, 2009. 

Emily Spencer, 

Education Officer, IO/UNESCO, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E9-5070 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-19-P
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-09-006] 

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

United States International Trade Commission. 

# Time and Date:

March 12, 2009 at 11 a.m. 

# Place:

Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000. 

# Status:

Open to the public. 

# Matters To Be Considered:

1. Agenda for future meetings: None. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification list. 

4. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1014, 1016, and 1017 (Second Review) (Polyvinyl Alcohol from China, Japan, and Korea)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before March 26, 2009.) 

5. Outstanding action jackets: None. 

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. 

Issued: February 26, 2009. 
      ( print page 9430)    
By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.

[FR Doc. E9-4525 Filed 3-3-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
No. 09-9083.

#### Eric John King, Petitioner v. Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.

559 U.S. 1075, 130 S. Ct. 2106,

176 L. Ed. 2d 735,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3325.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 30,2010 of A123 Systems, Inc. (the “Company”), as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David P.Vieau, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: August 11,  2010 |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   |
| /s/   David P. Vieau    |   |
| David P. Vieau               |   |
| Chief Executive Officer      |   |

 

----
From: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Michael.Pelan@lafarge-na.com

Cc: Nizich.Sharon@epamail.epa.gov, Steven Silverman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 06/08/2012 03:57 PM

Subject: Re: Revised PM limit

Dear Mike:

Actually we did both. The 2010 final rule used a corrected UPL equation (note that PCA had commented 

that they believed out equation was flawed - so we corrected the equation in response to the CA 

comment. In addition, we removed CISWI kiln form the PM data base. 

I would rather not start sending out the reconsideration floor data base at this present time - but there is 

already a docket item supporting the May 17, 2010 reconsideration notice that shows how the data base 

changed when CiSWI kilns were removed. See the attachments.

(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3580.1.xlsx)

(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3580.2.xls)

(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3580.3.xls)

(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3580.4.xls)

(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3580.5.xls)

(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3580.6.xls)

(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3580.7.xls)

(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3580.8.xls)

(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3580.9.xls)

(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3580.10.xls)

(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3580.pdf)

Keith W. Barnett

USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

919-541-5605

From: Michael.Pelan@lafarge-na.com

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 06/08/2012 11:38 AM

Subject: Revised PM limit

Keith:

I realize that we are still a few days away from seeing the proposed NESHAP

reconsideration rulemaking. However, I wanted to ask you a question or two

regarding the expected revision to the PM standard.
Based on the information EPA has shared with the industry, the revised

existing source PM limit (believed to be 0.07 lb/ton clinker) will be based

on a 3-hr stack testing basis with PM CEMS used as a parametric monitoring

requirement.

Given this to be accurate, I was wondering how EPA went from a May 6, 2009

proposed limit of 0.085 lb/ton clinker based on 3-hr stack testing data, to

the revised limit of 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on 3-hr stack testing data?

Did EPA use different PM data in its floor calculation or revise the

methodology (i.e., UPL formula) for calculating the revised existing source

limit?

I am expecting that we will have a very limited comment period on this

rulemaking. Therefore, would it be possible to get a copy of the PM

analysis asap (I'm assuming that it is not yet posted to the docket)?

Thanks,

Michael L. Pelan

Director, Environmental Compliance and Air Programs, US

Lafarge North America

michael.pelan@lafarge-na.com

office: 816 941-1822

mobile: 913 558-4468
No. 11-8000.

#### Robert L. Kendrick, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1184, 132 S. Ct. 1159,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 980.

181 L. Ed. 2d 1030,

January 23, 2012.

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

Same case below, 647 F.3d 732.
No. 09-9909.

#### Kristian D. Nelson, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1113, 130 S. Ct. 2420,

176 L. Ed. 2d 935,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3719.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 589 F.3d 924.
Performance Goals for the CEO 2011 Fiscal Year Bonus



 Exhibit 10.45 
 2011 PERFORMANCE GOALS FOR 
 CEO SHORT-TERM INCENTIVE BONUS

  

					
	Performance Criteria	  	
Goals and Minimum and Maximum
 Thresholds
	  	 Allocation of
 Target Amount

($) (1)

	 San Jose Water

Company ROE for
 2011 Fiscal Year
	  	 Target Goal: 10.20%

 
 Minimum Threshold: 8.70%

 
 Maximum Goal: 11.20%

 
	  	$104,170
	 Compliance

(Environmental) (2)
	  	 Maximum Goal: No material water
quality or environmental violations (Goal and Minimum Threshold are not applicable).
  
	  	$26,040
	 San Jose Water

Company
 Operational Goals (3)
	  	 Target Goal: Achieve 80% of
identified key water industry objectives measured primarily in terms of service, reliability and efficiency.
  

Minimum Threshold: Achieve 70% of identified water industry objectives.

 
 Maximum Goal: Achieve 90% of identified key water industry
objectives.
  
	  	$26,040


 

	1)	The target 2011 annual cash bonus amount is equal to $156,250, which is 25 percent of Mr. Roth’s base salary per his employment agreement. The actual bonus
may range from 0% to 150% of the target amount based on the Committee determination of the achievement of the performance goals: 

  

	 	•	 	 If the target goal is attained, 100 percent of the allocated amount will be paid. 



 

	 	•	 	 If only the minimum threshold is attained, then 50 percent of the allocated amount will be paid. 



 

	 	•	 	 If the maximum goal is attained, then 150 percent of the allocated amount will be paid. 



 

	 	•	 	 Should the actual level of attainment of any such performance goal be between two of the designated levels, then the bonus potential will be
interpolated on a straight-line basis. 


  

	2)	“No material water quality or environmental violations” means the absence of citations with material fines issued by state or federal environmental regulators
in the 2011 fiscal year in connection with violations which occurred in the 2011 fiscal year. A material fine will be deemed to occur if the amount of the fine exceeds $25,000 in any one instance or $100,000 in the aggregate for the year.


  

	3)	The key water industry objectives will be established by March 30, 2011.
EXHIBIT 21**Subsidiaries of Lindsay Manufacturing Co.**       Ownership  PercentageLindsay International Sales Corporation – Delaware (Inactive)  100%     Lindsay Transportation, Inc. – Nebraska  100%     Lindsay – Irrigation Pty., Ltd. – Australia (Inactive)  100%     Lindsay Europe SAS – France  100%     Irrigation Specialists, Inc. – Delaware  100%     Lindsay America do Sul Ltda. – Brazil  100%     Lindsay Manufacturing Africa (PTY) Ltd – South Africa  100%     LMC Professional Supply, Inc. – Delaware (Inactive)  100%     Barrier Systems, Inc.- California  100%
85
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5179]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,401]


Qimonda 200MM Facility, Including On-Site Leased Workers From 
Tokyo Electron America, Nikon Precision, Inc., and Ebara Technologies, 
Inc., Sandston, VA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on December 11, 2008, applicable to workers of 
Qimonda 200MM Facility, Sandston, Virginia. The notice was published in 
the Federal Register on December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79914).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of DRAM semiconductor wafers.
    New information shows that workers leased from Ebara Technologies, 
Inc., were employed on-site at the Sandston, Virginia location of 
Qimonda 200MM Facility. The Department has determined that these 
workers were sufficiently under the control of Qimonda 200MM Facility 
to be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from Ebara Technologies, Inc., 
working on-site at the Sandston, Virginia location of the subject firm.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers employed at Qimonda 200MM Facility, Sandston, Virginia who were 
adversely affected by a shift in production to a foreign country 
followed by increased imports of articles like or directly competitive 
with the DRAM semiconductor wafers produced by the subject firm.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-64,401 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Qimonda 200MM Facility, including on-site 
leased workers from Tokyo Electron America, Nikon Precision, Inc., 
and Ebara Technologies, Inc., who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after November 11, 2007 through 
December 11, 2010, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to 
apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 
of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of March 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-5179 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
HAMLET H.M.A., LLC v. HERNANDEZ

425A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 4, 2019

Mark L. Hayes, Attorney at Law, for Hernandez, Pedro (M.D.).

William S. F. Freeman, Attorney at Law, Rebecca C. Huntington, Attorney at Law, for Hamlet H.M.A., LLC D/B/A Sandhills Regional Medical Center.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 3rd of April 2019 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th of April 2019."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 12th day of April 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.

Davis, J. recused
No. 09-7877.

#### Janet Francis, Petitioner v. Joint Force Headquarters National Guard, et al.

559 U.S. 1059, 130 S. Ct. 2368,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3028.

176 L. Ed. 2d 579,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 911, 130 S. Ct. 1297, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1086, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 848.
No. 09-9416.

#### Steven Douglas Hayward, Petitioner v. Florida.

559 U.S. 1097, 130 S. Ct. 2385,

176 L. Ed. 2d 777,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3508.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Same case below, 24 So. 3d 17.
[RCLE Letterhead]


February 20, 2011







Advanced Ventures Corporation







Advanced Ventures Corporation is interested in engaging Mr. Eyal Artsiely, as a sub-contractor for the design and manufacture of a prototype product which is based on the US patent known as "One Piece Catheter" US patent no. 6,743,209 (the "Patent") as will be specified in the requirement document supplied Advanced Ventures Corporation.







This proposal presents an offer to perform the project required and to serve as a basis for further engagements.







Development Process


 


Deliverables


 


Eyal Artsiely will provide Advanced Ventures Corporation with an initial prototype design and an initial prototype which will be manufactured in accordance with the Patent.







Timetables & Pricing


 


Schedule


 


Following is a detailed schedule for the project, including milestones for monitoring the advance of the work. All times are in weeks from the approval date:








	
Description and milestone


	
Advanced Ventures Corporation issues a PO and work begins


	
Initial Prototype Design


	
Initial Prototype







 


Payments


 


The development of the above listed deliverables will be done at a total price of 8.500USD


 




Payment shall split as follows:



	
  

	
·

	
20% upon issue of PO








	
  

	
·

	
70% upon completion of Preliminary Design Review








	
  

	
·

	
10% upon delivery of initial prototype







 




Notes:


 




  





  











  




 












In case the project is terminated prematurely, Advanced Ventures Corporation will pay 50% of the remaining balance upon termination notice.


The Down-payment will be made immediately upon approval of Advanced Ventures Corporation of the project.


 


Terms


 



	
  

	
Ø

	
Payment in NIS plus VAT








	
  

	
Ø

	
Payment conditions NET.













	
/s/ Eyal Artsiely

	 	
/s/Advanced Ventures Corp.


	
Eyal Artsiely

	 	
Advanced Ventures Corp.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Hairston, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 818]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Colleen McMahon, J.), rendered on or about July 22, 1997, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application *272to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
No. 09-8552.

#### Clarence Pete, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 982, 130 S. Ct. 1712,

176 L. Ed. 2d 198,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2032.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2016366EN.01000501.xml

| 5.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/5

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 25 April 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39792(1) Steel Abrasives

Rapporteur: Hungary

(2016/C 366/04)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes agreements and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes agreements and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertaking concerned by the draft decision has participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertaking concerned by the draft decision has participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreements and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreements and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU and EEA. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU and EEA.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the addressee of the decision. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the addressee of the decision.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---