alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 1 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 2 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 3 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 4 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 5 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 6 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 7 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 8 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 9 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 10 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 11 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 12 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 13 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 14 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 15 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 16 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 17 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 18 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 19 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 20 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 21 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 22 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 23 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 24 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 25 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 26 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 27 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 28 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 29 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 30 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 31 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 32 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 33 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 34 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 35 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 36 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 37 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 38 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 39 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 18-6 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 40 of 40
Case 1:07-cv-01528-AKH Document 7-2 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-01528-AKH Document 7-2 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-01528-AKH Document 7-2 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-01528-AKH Document 7-2 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 23907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11788]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-395-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

May 4, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 1, 2001, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern) tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1 the following tariff sheets to be 
effective June 1, 2001:

Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 54
First Revised Sheet No. 54A
Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 61
Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 62
Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 63
Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 64
First Revised Sheet No. 300A
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 301
Second Revised Sheet No. 301A

    Northern states that the revised tariff sheets are being filed in 
accordance with Section 53 of Northern's General Terms and Conditions, 
which requires Northern to adjust its fuel and Unaccounted for (UAF) 
gas percentages each June 1.
    Northern states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Northern's customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-11788 Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1535

SAMUEL E. ROSE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARTY HUDSON; B. V. HYLER; MICHAEL HOLLAND;

JOSEPH BRENNAN; UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA

HEALTH AND RETIREMENT FUNDS, by their

Trustees,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District

Judge. (CA-99-54-2)

Submitted: July 31, 2000 Decided: August 23, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel E. Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Charlie Richard Jessee, JESSEE

& READ, P.C., Abingdon, Virginia; Carolyn O’Meara Dutrow, UNITED

MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel E. Rose appeals from the district court’s order upholding the denial of disability benefits by the Trustees of the United

Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Trust. Our de novo review of

the record reveals that the Trustees’ decision is supported by

substantial evidence and was not, therefore, an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Rose v. Hudson, No. 99-CV-0054 (W.D. Va. Apr. 6, 2000).

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.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 3610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1181]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Mud Island Addition to Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved 
the expansion of the Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge by accepting 
the donation of Mud Island, located in the Detroit River, adjacent to 
Ecorse, Michigan.

DATES: This action was effective on January 5, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Larson, Chief, Ascertainment 
and Planning Branch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, BHW Federal 
Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056. Telephone 612-
713-5430

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The authority to accept donation of real 
property is contained in the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 
742f) as amended.
    Mud Island will contribute toward the ecosystem goals of the 
Service by preserving valuable aquatic shoals for the benefit of 
migratory waterfowl, especially diving ducks, and potential spawning 
habitat for the lake sturgeon.
    Based on the information contained in the decision document, a 
Categorical Exclusion was signed on November 30, 2000, by the Regional 
Director. We will expand the Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge by 
accepting the donation of Mud Island.

    Dated: January 5, 2001.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
[FR Doc. 01-1181 Filed 1-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Case 1:07-cv-05350-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05350-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05350-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05350-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05350-AKH Document 10 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5
#### MARIE SMITH *v.*MEDIPLEX OF WESTPORT ET AL.

(SC 17210)

Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js.

Argued February 16

officially released May 10, 2005

*NealL. Moskow,*with whom, on the brief, were *Frederic S. Ury, Deborah M. Garskof*and *Anthony J. LaBella,*for the appellant (substitute plaintiff).

*Robert C. E. Laney,*with whom, on the brief, was *Eric W. F. Niederer,*for the appellee (defendant Joanne C. Reisch).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The substitute plaintiff, Merilyn Smith, executrix of the estate of the plaintiff decedent, Marie Smith,1 brought an action against the defendant physi*509cian, Joanne C. Reisch,2 for medical malpractice regarding treatment of the decedent.3 After a defendant’s verdict by the jury and judgment on the verdict, the plaintiff attempted pro se4 to appeal from the judgment to the Appellate Court.

The Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court on the basis of late filing, the appeal having been filed one day late. The plaintiff moved for permission to file a late motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. The Appellate Court denied that motion. We then granted the plaintiffs petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly dismiss this appeal for late filing?” *Smith*v. *Mediplex of Westport,*269 Conn. 916, 852 A.2d 744 (2004). This certified appeal by the plaintiff followed.

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

1

 Upon the death of the plaintiff, Marie Smith, Merilyn Smith was substituted as the plaintiff in this action. Hereafter, we refer to Merilyn Smith as the plaintiff.

2

 Initially, Mediplex of Westport and Mediplex of Connecticut, Inc., were also named as defendants. The counts against them were ultimately withdrawn, and the case was tried against Reisch only. Hereafter, we refer to Reisch as the defendant.

3

 The plaintiff did not claim that the decedent’s death was caused by the defendant’s malpractice.

4

 The plaintiff had been represented by counsel in the trial court.
exv10w3



 






Exhibit 10.3




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO THE

ZIMMER HOLDINGS, INC.

STOCK PLAN

FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS



This First Amendment to the Zimmer Holdings, Inc. Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the
“Plan”) is hereby adopted by Zimmer Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), effective as of January 1,
2005.



WHEREAS, the Plan was adopted effective as of August 6, 2001; and



WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Plan solely to comply with changes required by Section
409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.



NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of January 1, 2005, as follows:





	1.	 	A new paragraph is added to the end of Section 2, Administration, which shall read as
follows:
	 
	 	 	The Committee shall maintain appropriate records of awards granted and vested prior
to January 1, 2005, that may provide for a deferral of compensation within the
meaning of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“Code”), together with any earnings or losses attributable thereto. Such awards
shall be governed by the terms of the Plan as in effect on October 3, 2004.
	 
	2.	 	A new Section 5(i) shall be added to the Plan, which shall read as follows:






(i) No Deferral Feature. No Option granted under this Plan shall include any
feature for the deferral of compensation other than the deferral of recognition of
income until the later of exercise or disposition of the Option under Section 83 of
the Code, or the time the stock acquired pursuant to the exercise of the Option
first becomes substantially vested (as defined in regulations interpreting Section
83 of the Code).




	3.	 	A new Section 6(d) is hereby added, which shall read as follows:






(c) Compliance with Section 409A of the Code. Notwithstanding any provision of the
Plan to the contrary, in the event any Award under this Section 6 constitutes or
provides for a deferral of compensation within the meaning of Section 409A of the
Code, the Award shall comply in all respects with the applicable requirements of
Section 409A of the Code; the agreement evidencing the Award shall include all
provisions required for the Award to comply with the applicable requirements of
Section 409A of the Code; and those provisions of the Award agreement shall be
deemed to constitute provisions of the Plan.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1559

JOHN DOE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF BALTIMORE COUNTY; RICHARD LILLEY, Vice President of Enrollment and Student Services; SCOTT ECKHARDT, Director of Student Conduct and Title IX Coordinator; ERIC WASHINGTON, Student Conduct Administrator; SARAH MORALES, CCBC Philosophy Coordinator of Essex & Dundalk Campuses; PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the Un ited States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III , District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv - 02575

- GLR )

Submitted : May 22, 2023 Decided: June 8, 2023

Before WYNN and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

John Doe , Appellant Pro Se. Jordan F. Dunham , Clifford Bernard Geiger , KOLLMAN & SAUCIER, PA , Timonium, M aryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1559 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/08/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Plaintiff filed a civil complaint alleging that Defendants engaged in disability discrimination and retaliation, in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
29 U.S.C. § 794 . On appeal, he challenges the district court’s orde r s dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim, denying his motion to file under a pseudonym, and denying reconsideration

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s orders

. Doe v. Cmty. Coll. of Balt. Cnty

. , No. 1:19

- cv - 02575

- GLR (D. Md. Aug. 25, 2020 & Apr. 15, 2021) . 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 USCA4 Appeal: 21-1559 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/08/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
January 12, 2006

BY EMAIL AND AIR BORNE EXPRESS
Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Rule Certification. Notification of an Approved Amendment to Rule 123.06,
“Deliverable Metal Specifications” of the Aluminum Futures Contract.
NYMEX Submission 06-12.

Dear CFTC Commissioners:

The New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. ("NYMEX" or the "Exchange") is notifying the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) of an approved
amendment to Rule 123.06, “Deliverable Metal Specifications” of the Aluminum Futures
Contract to be implemented effective Wednesday, January 18, 2006. The approved amendment
increases the weight tolerance of the Low-Profile Sow deliverable against the Aluminum Futures
Contract to seventeen hundred thirty-five (1,735) pounds from fifteen hundred seventy-five
(1,575) pounds.

Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) and CFTC Rule 40.6, the
Exchange hereby certifies that the attached rule amendment complies with the Act, including
regulations under the Act. These approved amendments will go into effect on Wednesday,
January 18, 2006.

Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Albert J. Getz at (212) 299-
2608.

Very truly yours,

Robert A. Levin
Senior Vice President - Research

ce: Christopher K. Bowen, Esq.

Attached: Approved amendment to Rule 123.06, “Deliverable Metal Specifications” of the
Aluminum Futures Contract.


ALUMINUM FUTURES CONTRACT

Approved Rule Amendment
Underlining indicates additions; Strike through indicates deletions.

Rule 123.06 DELIVERABLE METAL SPECIFICATIONS
(B) Shapes
Aluminum tendered against each contract shall conform to one of the following shapes.

(1) Sows weighing from six hundred (600) to fifteen-hundred-seventy-five(4,575)
seventeen hundred thirty-five (1,735) pounds; or

(2) T-bars weighing from six hundred (600) to seventeen hundred thirty-five (1,735)
pounds.
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Laura M. Bray, certify that:1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CLAIMSNET.COM INC.; 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) [Reserved]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: April 20, 2006/s/ Laura M. Bray
# EUR-Lex - 52005AP0013 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005AP0013

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council and Commission Decision on the conclusion of the Protocol to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, and the Slovak Republic to the European Union (COM(2004)0370 — 14211/2004 — C6-0028/2005 — 2004/0119(AVC)) **

*
Official Journal 253 E , 13/10/2005 P. 0026 - 0026 *

P6_TA(2005)0013

Stabilisation and Association Agreement EU-Croatia ***

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council and Commission Decision on the conclusion of the Protocol to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, and the Slovak Republic to the European Union (COM(2004)0370 — 14211/2004 — C6-0028/2005 — 2004/0119(AVC))

(Assent procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the proposal for a Council and Commission Decision (COM(2004)0370 — 14211/2004) [1],

- having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 300(3), second subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 300(2), first subparagraph, second sentence and Article 310 of the EC Treaty (C6-0028/2005),

- having regard to Rules 75, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0011/2005),

1. Gives its assent to the conclusion of the Protocol;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Republic of Croatia.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

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