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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, CD8 Immune Responses Against Viral Pathogens.                     

*Date:*                         August 19, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 3128, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Katrin Eichelberg, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-0818,                         *keichelberg@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 16, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-17438 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 ICG 2013 Performance Plan 
 The Board of Directors of ICG Group, Inc. (together with
its wholly-owned subsidiaries, “ICG”) hereby establishes this 2013 Performance Plan (this “Plan”). The purposes of this Plan are to (1) advance the interests of ICG’s stockholders by providing certain officers and other
employees with bonus payments and/or vesting of performance shares upon the achievement of specified corporate and individual goals and (2) help ICG attract and retain key employees. 
 The Compensation Committee of ICG’s Board of Directors (the “Committee”) will administer and interpret this Plan. All decisions and determinations of the Committee with respect to this Plan
will be final and binding on all parties. 
 ICG’s 2013 goals include quantitative and qualitative goals. The relative weighting of each
element of the ICG-specific goals is described below. 
 Eighty percent (80%) of the Plan is tied to the accomplishment of quantitative
goals. The achievement of a specified consolidated GAAP revenue goal for ICG’s existing consolidated companies (GovDelivery, MSDSonline, Procurian and SeaPass) accounts for forty percent (40%) of the Plan, and the achievement of a
specified adjusted non-GAAP net income goal on a consolidated basis accounts for forty percent (40%) of the Plan. 
 Twenty percent
(20%) of the Plan is tied to execution against the following qualitative goals: (1) execution of strategic initiatives, (2) improvement in communicating the value of ICG’s underlying assets, (3) enhancement of the ICG brand,
(4) development of ICG’s acquisition pipeline, (5) performance and competency of the executives of ICG’s companies and (6) reaction to unforeseen market/business conditions. 

Following the end of the 2013 fiscal year, the Committee will evaluate ICG’s 2013 performance and determine the extent (expressed as a percentage)
to which the corporate and individual goals, as applicable, were achieved (such percentage, the “Achievement Percentage”). The Committee will then award bonuses and/or provide for the vesting of performance shares in accordance with each
individual’s Achievement Percentage under the terms of this Plan.
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

19. Persons at work in agriculture and nonagricultural industries by hours of work

[Numbers in thousands]

Hours of work

2017

Persons at work Percent distribution

All

industries

Agriculture

and related

industries

Nonagricultural

industries

All

industries

Agriculture

and related

industries

Nonagricultural

industries

Total, persons at work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147,731 2,342 145,389 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 to 34 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,080 541 34,539 23.7 23.1 23.8

1 to 4 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,494 45 1,449 1.0 1.9 1.0

5 to 14 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,282 121 5,161 3.6 5.2 3.5

15 to 29 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,387 246 17,140 11.8 10.5 11.8

30 to 34 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,916 128 10,788 7.4 5.5 7.4

35 hours and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112,651 1,801 110,851 76.3 76.9 76.2

35 to 39 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,478 99 9,378 6.4 4.2 6.5

40 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66,525 736 65,789 45.0 31.4 45.3

41 hours and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,648 965 35,683 24.8 41.2 24.5

41 to 48 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,584 178 12,406 8.5 7.6 8.5

49 to 59 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,338 303 14,035 9.7 13.0 9.7

60 hours and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,726 484 9,242 6.6 20.7 6.4

Average hours, total at work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.7 43.0 38.6 – – –

Average hours, persons who usually work full time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.4 48.1 42.3 – – –

NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data. Dash indicates no data or data that do not meet publication criteria (values

not shown where base is less than 35,000).

1
Order filed May 22, 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 13
- 00168
- CR

____________ PEDRO ERNESTO UMANA , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1360048



### ORDER This court has determined, pursuant to T exas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of (1) State’s Exhibit 1, Statement of CD; and (2) State’s Exhibit 1

- A, DVD

- R Defendant’s redacted statement .The clerk of the 351st District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this

court the original of (1) State’s Exhibit 1, Statement of CD; and (2) State’s Exhibit 1

- A, DVD

- R Defendant’s redacted statement , on or before June 2, 2014 . The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe th ese original exhibit s ; to deliver them to the justices of this court for their inspection; a nd, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of (1) State’s Exhibit 1, Statement of CD; and (2) State’s Exhibit 1

- A, DVD

- R Defendant’s redacted statement , to the clerk of the 351st District Court.

PER CURIAM
[No. 22369-8-III.

Division Three.

October 20, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jamie Lee Becker, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Lincoln County, No. 03-1-00006-7, Philip W. Borst, J., entered August 5, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, J., concurred in by Kato, C.J., and Schultheis, J.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 Date: August 13, 2010
    By:
    /s/ David R. AllenDavid R. AllenChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
[No. 32266-8-II.

Division Two.

November 8, 2005.]

#### Ann W. Wilson, *Appellant,*v. The Department of Retirement Systems, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 01-2-05627-7, Brian M. Tollefson, J., entered September 16, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Van Deren, A.C.J., and Armstrong, J.
Case 2:11-cr-00554-KSH Document 19 Filed 03/20/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 65
Case 2:11-cr-00554-KSH Document 19 Filed 03/20/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 66
#### William F. QUINLAN, Administrator of the Estate of Mary Jane Matthews v. Henry Overton MATTHEWS.

Civ. A. No. 24064.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Nov. 12, 1958.

*26Norman Shigon, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Ambler & Detweiler, Chas. F. G. Smith, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

KRAFT, District Judge.

Defendant opposes plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The desired amendment proposes to add that the cause of action is brought, in the alternative, under the Wrongful Death and Survival Acts of Virginia, Code 1950, §§ 8-628.1, 8-633 et seq., the place of the tort. The objection is based on the ground *inter alia,*that Virginia law, alleged by defendant to be applicable here, prohibits suits between the estate of a deceased wife and her husband. The original complaint sets forth a cause of action under the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death and Survival Acts, 12 P.S. § 1601 et seq., 20 P.S. § 320.601 et seq. Plaintiff seeks to protect his position by amendment of his complaint, in the event it is determined that the law of Virginia controls, and, if so, to assert then that such suits are permissible.

We think it better practice to refrain from imputing an air of judicial finality to the merits of a situation which' has not yet materialized and so decline to pass upon the merits now. Judge Clancy has stated the proposition aptly in Chut-ter v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 20 Fed.Rules Serv. 15 a.21, Case 4 (S.D. N.Y.1954):

> “Probably the best course is for the motion judge not to vouchsafe an opinion on the merits of the proposed defenses which are on their face not frivolous, * * *, *when they are only proposed.*That means that the only question before this court is whether or not permitting the amendment would work prejudice to the plaintiff. We can see none. Prejudice is not to be found in the fact that a defense is or is not sufficient.”1 (Emphasis supplied).

F.R.Civ.P. 15(a), 28 U.S.C. provides that “ * * * leave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Believing that the proposed amendment is sought in good faith and that no prejudice will be visited upon defendant in allowing the amendment we enter the following

*27Order

Now, November 12, 1958, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted.

1

. See generally, Cravatts v. Klozo Fastener Corp., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1954, 16 F.R.D. 454; McNaughton v. New York Central R. Co., 7 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 835; Bella v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc., D.C. S.D.N.Y.1954, 18 F.R.D. 410; Snyder v. Dravo Corp., D.C.W.D.Pa.1947, 6 F.R.D. 546, 551.
#### In the Matter of Joann London, Appellant, v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, Respondent.

[855 NYS2d 561]

*740The petitioner, the owner of a 1.1-acre lot in the Town of Huntington, applied to the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington (hereinafter the ZBA) for area variances in order to subdivide her property into two lots so that a second house could be built on the property. The petitioner’s property is located in an area that is zoned for one-acre lots. She sought variances reducing the area requirement to one-half acre and reducing the permitted width at the setback line from 125 feet to approximately 104 feet for one of the subdivided lots. Since a majority of the ZBA did not vote to grant the application, it was deemed denied *(see*Town Law § 267-a [13] [b]; *Matter of Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington,*97 NY2d 86 [2001]).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Supreme Court applied the appropriate standard in reviewing the ZBA’s determination *(see Matter of Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington,*97 NY2d 86 [2001]). A local zoning board has broad discretion in considering variance applications, and judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the action taken by the zoning board was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion *(see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig,*98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]). In this case, the denial of the petitioner’s application for area variances was not illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion in light of, inter alia, the ZBA’s conclusion, based upon documentary evidence, that the granting of the proposed variances would lead to a detrimental change in the character of the neighborhood, and the fact that the proposed variances were substantial *(see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2*NY3d 608 [2004]; *Matter of Merlotto v Town of Patterson Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*43 AD3d 926 [2007]).

Further, although “a [determination] of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its . . . prior precedent nor [sets forth] its reasons for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious” *(Matter of Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington,*97 NY2d at 93 [internal quotation marks omitted]), the evidence at the hearing established that the circumstances of the prior variances granted by the ZBA were distinguishable, and, therefore, the ZBA was not required to set forth *741an explanation for its departure therefrom (see *Matter of Conversions for Real Estate, LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Roslyn,*31 AD3d 635 [2006]). Miller, J.P., Covello, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

27. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, sex, and age

[Numbers in thousands]

Reason

Total,

16 years

and over

Men,

20 years

and over

Women,

20 years

and over

Both sexes,

16 to 19

years

2021 2022 2021 2022 2021 2022 2021 2022

NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED

Total unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,623 5,996 4,302 2,867 3,625 2,453 696 675

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs. . . 5,099 2,767 2,827 1,566 2,130 1,105 142 95

On temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,582 830 837 465 680 328 66 37

Not on temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,516 1,936 1,990 1,101 1,450 777 76 58

Permanent job losers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,799 1,359 1,554 763 1,190 564 55 33

Persons who completed temporary jobs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717 577 436 338 260 213 21 26

Job leavers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803 857 383 421 372 371 48 65

Reentrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,204 1,891 956 761 1,007 879 241 251

New entrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518 482 136 119 116 98 266 265

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

Total unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs. . . 59.1 46.1 65.7 54.6 58.8 45.0 20.4 14.1

On temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 13.8 19.5 16.2 18.7 13.4 9.4 5.5

Not on temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.8 32.3 46.3 38.4 40.0 31.7 10.9 8.6

Job leavers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 14.3 8.9 14.7 10.3 15.1 6.8 9.6

Reentrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.6 31.5 22.2 26.5 27.8 35.8 34.6 37.1

New entrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 8.0 3.2 4.1 3.2 4.0 38.2 39.2

UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF THE

CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs. . . 3.2 1.7 3.4 1.9 2.9 1.5 2.4 1.5

Job leavers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 1.0

Reentrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.4 1.2 4.0 4.0

New entrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 4.5 4.2

NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

1
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Charles V. LABOVITZ.

No. E.B.D. 56-60-A.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

Dec. 27, 1956.

Anthony Julian, U. S. Atty., Daniel Needham, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Hubert C. Thompson, Alfred Sigel, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

ALDRICH, District Judge.

This is a motion for the suppression and return of evidence under Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. rule 41(e), 18 U.S.C.A. The motion is a joint one brought by a corporation, two individuals who allegedly constitute all of its stockholders, and a third individual, alleged to be a corporate employee. The papers, books and records, etc. were taken by federal officials under a search warrant. It is alleged that the taking violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and that the papers, etc. “are the private property of the parties herein.” There is no allegation that each item belongs to all of the parties, jointly or otherwise, and the allegations as a whole suggest the contrary. There are no accompanying affidavits. The government moves that the parties be required to file affidavits identifying more specifically the ownership of the documents, and also the ownership or the possessory interests in the premises searched.

Rule 41 has no requirements as to affidavits. Rule 47 makes affidavits permissive. It is true that some courts have required affidavits. Cf. United States v. Stein, D.C.W.D.N.Y., 53 F.Supp. 911; United States v. Vomero, D.C.E.D.N.Y., 6 F.R.D. 275. There is much to be said for this practice, but I can not see the legal justification for it.

On the other hand this motion, so-called, is a separate proceeding, on which evidence must be taken. I think it should show affirmatively the basis for relief. Then the government will know what it has to meet, or may move to dismiss, if appropriate. Motion to be amended in ten days to state specifically the ownership interest in the documents and in the property searched.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hon. Katharine S. Hayden 

Crim. No. 11-554 

v. 

CONTINUANCE ORDER 

GREGORY CICCONE 

This matter having come before the Court on the joint 

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the 

District of New Jersey (by Joseph Mack, Assistant U.S. Attorney), 

and defendant Gregory Ciccone (by Salvatore Alfano and Louis 

Esposito, Esqs., for the Defendant) for an order granting a 

continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter, and 

the defendant being aware that he has a right to have the matter 

brought to trial within 70 days of the date of his appearance 

before a judicial officer of this court pursuant to Title 18 of 

the United States Code, Section 3161(c) (1), and as the defendant 

has consented to an additional continuance, and for good and 

sufficient cause shown, 

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should 

be continued for the following reasons: 

1. Discovery made available in this case involves a 

large volume of paper files which may necessitate a lengthy 

review by defense counsel; 

2. Taking into account the exercise of diligence, 

therefore, the facts of this case require that defense counsel be 

Case 2:11-cr-00554-KSH Document 30 Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 99
permitted a reasonable amount of additional time for effective 

preparation in this matter; and 

3. Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and 

both the United States and the defendant desire additional time 

to negotiate a plea agreement, which would render trial of this 

matter unnecessary; and 

4. Pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code, 

Section 3161(h) (7), the ends of justice served by granting the 

continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the 

WHEREFORE, on this 1 ~~ay of October 2012, 

defendant in a speedy trial. 

ORDERED that motions shall be filed by December 21, 

2012, opposition briefs shall be filed by January 8, 2013, the 

. '7 a.)-, 0 :07; q ·rY\ t 

motions hearing date 22, 2013, and the 

trial is set for --~~~~~~~~-'~----~ 013; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this and hereby 

is, continued until the date of trial, 2013, 

and the period including today's date through the 

date of trial, 

under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, Title 18, United States Code, 

Section 3161 (h) (7). 

- Salvatore Alfano, Esq. 

Louis Esposito, Esq. 

Counsel for Gregory Ciccone 

HON. KATHARINE S. HAYDEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:11-cr-00554-KSH Document 30 Filed 10/19/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 100