alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CS 314937-AJ 05/15/2020

cdc.gov/coronavirus

Ngaahi me’a ‘oku tonu keke ‘ilo fekau’aki mo 

e KOVITI-19 ke malu’I koe mo e niihi kehe

‘Ilo ki he KOVITI-19

• Ko e vailasi kolona (KOVITI-19) ko e mahaki 

ne fakatupu mei he vailasi ‘oku pipihi mei he 

tangata ki he tangata.

• Ko e vailasi ‘oku ne fakatupu ‘a e KOVITI-19 ko 

e vailasi kolona fo’ou kuo mafola ki he ngaahi 

fonua ‘I mamani. 

• Ko e ngaahi faka’ilonga ‘o e KOVITI-19 ‘oku 

kau ai ‘a e ‘ikai ke ‘iai ha faka’ilonga ki he 

puke lahi.

‘Ilo ki hono mafola ‘a e KOVITI-19

• ‘E malava keke pihia ‘I he KOVITI-19 ‘okapau 

teke ofi (fakafuofua ki he fute ‘e 6 pe ko e li 

tu’o ua e la’inima) ki ha taha ‘oku ne ma’u e 

mahaki ni Ko e KOVITI-19 ‘oku angamaheni 

hono tufaki mei he tangata ki he tangata.

• ‘E malava pe keke pihia ‘I he vailasi ko ‘eni 

‘aki ha’o manava’aki ha huhu’a ‘I he taimi ‘oku 

tale ai, mafatua pe lea ha taha ‘oku puke ‘I he 

mahaki ni.

• ‘E malava keke pihia ‘I he me’a ni ‘I ha’o ala ki 

ha feitu’u pe ko ha me’a ‘oku ‘iai ‘a e vailasi, 

pea hili koia ‘oku ke ala ki ho’o ngutu, ‘ihu 

pe mata.

Malu’I koe mo e kakai kehe mei he KOVITI-19

• ‘Oku lolotonga hala ha faito’o ke ne malu’i kita 

mei he KOVITI-19 Koe founga lelei taha keke 

malu ai ko ha’o faka’ehi’ehi mei he vailasi ‘oku 

ne fakatupu ‘a e KOVITI-19.

• Nofo ma’u ‘I ‘api ‘I he faingamalie kotoa pea ke 

faka’ehi’ehi mei he ofi ki ha kakai kehe.

• Tui ha’o puloa tupenu ‘oku ne ‘ufi’ufi ho’o 

‘ihu pea mo e ngutu ‘I ha ngaahi feitu’u 

fakapule’anga.

• Fufulu mo holoholo’i ‘a e ngaahi feitu’u 

angamaheni ‘oku te ala kiai.

• Fufulu ho’o nima ‘aki ha koa mo e vai ke ‘a’u ki 

he sekoni ‘e 20, pe ko ha’o ngaue’aki ha me’a 

fufulu nima ‘oku a’u ‘o peseti ‘e 60 ‘a e lahi ‘o e 

olokaholo ‘oku ‘iai.

milk

Ako ki he tauhi va mama’o

• Ngaue’aki ‘a e initaneti ki 

he fakatau me’akai mo e 

faito’o, sio ki he toketa, pea 

mo fakakakato ‘a e ngaahi 

ngaue fakapangike ‘I he taimi 

faingamalie ai.

• ‘Okapau ‘e fiema’u keke ‘alu 

tonu kiai, nofo va mama’o mo 

ha taha pe ‘aki e fute ‘e 6 pe 

lahi ange pea ke holo’I ho’o 

ngaahi koloa teke ala kiai.

• Ngaue’aki ‘a e tiliva mo e 

takeaway, pea fakasi’isi’i 

‘a e fetu’utaki mata ‘I he 

faingamalie kotoa pe. 

Ta’ofi ‘a hono mafola ‘a e 

KOVITI-19 ‘o kapau ‘oku ke puke

• Nofo ma’u ‘I ‘api ‘o kapau ‘oku 

ke puke, tukukehe kapau teke 

fiema’u tokoni fakafalemahaki.

• Fakamama’o mei hono 

ngaue’aki ‘a e tekisi, pasi mo 

ha toe heka fevahevahe’aki.

• Nofo mavahe mei he kakai 

kehe ‘I ho’o ‘api ka e pehe foki 

ki ha monumanu. 

• ‘Oku ‘ikai ke ‘iai ha faito’o totonu 

‘o e KOVITI-19, ka ‘e malava 

keke fekumi ki ha tokoni fakafalemahaki ke fai ha tokoni ki 

ho’o ngaahi faka’ilonga.

• Kapau teke fiema’u tokoni, 

ta kimu’a.

‘Ilo ho’o tu’unga faka-mo’ui lelei 

mo e malava keke puke lahi

• ‘Oku malava ke puke ‘a e taha 

kotoa ‘I he KOVITI-19.

• Ko e kau vaivai mo e kakai ‘oku 

‘iai ha’a nau mahaki tauhi ‘oku 

nau malava ken au puke lahi 

mei he vailasi ni.
§ 3b.223 Fees. ( a ) Fees will be charged for the direct cost of duplication of records in a system of records when copies are requested by the individual seeking access to the records. Any person may obtain a copy of the Commission's schedule of fees by telephone, by mail or by coming in person to the office of the appropriate system manager who is responsible for the protection and accountability of the desired record. Requests for copies of requested records and payment therefor must be made to the system manager. Fees will only be charged for costs of $2 or more.
( b ) Where practicable, self-service duplication of requested documents may also be made on duplicating machines by the person requesting the records, on a reimbursable basis to the system manager, in the presence of the Commission representative having physical custody of the record. Where data has been extracted from one of the Commission's systems of records on magnetic tape or disks, or computer files, copies of the records of these files may be secured on a reimbursable basis upon written request to the appropriate system manager. The fee will vary for each requirement, depending on size and complexity.
( c ) No fee will be charged in the following instances: ( 1 ) When the system manager determines that he can grant access to records only by providing a copy of the record through the mail because he cannot provide reasonable means for the individual to have access in person;
( 2 ) For search and review of requested records to determine if they fall within the disclosure requirements of this part; and
( 3 ) When the system manager makes a copy of the record as a necessary part of the process of making it available for review.
( d ) Except for requests made by Government agencies, certification of copies of any official Commission record shall be accompanied by a fee of $2 per document.
#### §§ 15.5-15.10 [Reserved]
-  Home 

# In This Section

                      -  Studies                          -  Economic Impact Study 
                        -  Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway Study 
                        -  Infrastructure Investment Survey 
                        -  Safety Impact Study 
                        -  Social Impact Study 
                      -  Publications                          -  Seaway Compass 
                        -  Seaway System Directory 
                        -  Marketing Materials 
                      -  Reports                          -  Annual Reports 
                        -  Seaway Infrastructure Program 
                      -  Other Resources                          -  Electronic Reading Room 
                        -  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
                        -  GLS Federal Grants Toolkit 
                        -  Green Shipping Corridor Network (GSCN) 
                        -  GSCN Framework 
                        -  Transportation ROUTES 

## Contact the GLS

Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS)Policy HeadquartersU.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Ave, SE W62-300Washington, DC20590United States

**Email:**GLS@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-0091****Alt Phone:**800-785-2779****Fax:**202-366-7147****Business Hours:**8:00am-5:00 pm ET, M-F

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

                            - GLS on Facebook
                            - GLS on Twitter
                            - GLS on Instagram
                            - Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway

# Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway Study

**Purpose**

The 2007 *Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway Study* sets out observations and key considerations for continuing the success of this productive, safe and reliable waterway in a cost-effective, efficient, and sustainable manner. The study describes the crucial role of the waterway, a resource that flows directly across two provinces and eight states, situated at the axis of the world's largest binational trading relationship between the United States and Canada. The study captures a common determination for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway as a sustainable and optimized system for the future movement of goods.

**Results**

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system is an important element in the North American economy. Marine transportation on the waterway provides shippers with a safe, efficient, reliable and competitive option for the movement of goods. The study provides a variety of recommendations specific to the System, including:
                      - Its current role in North American transportation
                      - Its dynamic role in the future of North American transportation
                      - The importance of optimizing existing Seaway infrastructure
                      - The importance of environmental sustainability

Click to learn more about the *Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway Study:*
                      - **Full Report**
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5840]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-1088 (Final)]


Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject 
investigation, the United States International Trade Commission 
(Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United 
States is materially injured by reason of imports from Taiwan of 
polyvinyl alcohol, provided for under subheading 3905.30.00 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found 
by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the United 
States at less than fair value (LTFV).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
    \2\ Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R. 
Pearson made negative determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this investigation effective September 7, 
2004, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and 
Commerce by Celanese Chemicals, Ltd., Dallas, TX. The final phase of 
the investigation was scheduled by the Commission following 
notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of 
polyvinyl alcohol from Taiwan were being sold at LTFV within the 
meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of 
the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigation and 
of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by 
posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the 
notice in the Federal Register of October 4, 2010 (75 FR 61175). The 
hearing was held in Washington, DC, on January 25, 2011, and all 
persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in 
person or by counsel.
    The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation 
to the Secretary of Commerce on March 9, 2011. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4218 (March 2011), 
entitled Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan: Investigation No. 731-TA-1088 
(Final).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 9, 2011.
James R. Holbein,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-5840 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### In the Matter of Khalifah Abdul-Khaliq, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 742]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge respondent’s determination which found him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit assaulting other inmates, engaging in violent conduct and disobeying a direct order. The misbehavior report and the supporting documentation, together with the witness testimony, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt and, thus, the determination will not be disturbed *(see Matter of Williams v Goord,*23 AD3d 972, 973 [2005]; *Matter of Rosario v Goord,*12 AD3d 758, 759 [2004]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report was sufficiently detailed to provide him with notice of the charges and to enable him to prepare a defense *(see Matter of Ramirez v Goord,*32 AD3d 601, 601 [2006]; *Matter of Wigfall v Goord,*16 AD3d 791, 792 [2005]). Finally, any error on the part of the Hearing Officer in denying petitioner access to the medical records of the other inmates involved in the altercation is harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of petitioner’s guilt and the fact that the medical records were not relied upon *873by the Hearing Officer in making his determination *(see Matter of Huggins v Goord,*28 AD3d 891, 891-892 [2006]; *Matter of Cody v Goord,*17 AD3d 943, 944 [2005]; *Matter of Moore v Goord,*255 AD2d 640, 641 [1998], *lv denied*93 NY2d 802 [1999]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim of hearing officer bias, have been reviewed and determined to be without merit.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
BEFORE DROPPING HER OFF 

AT THE PARTY...

Create an “exit plan” to help her make good choices.

Talk with your child about what to do when faced with a difficult 

decision about alcohol. Come up with a plan together to avoid 

drinking, such as texting a code word to a family member or 

practicing how to say “no thanks” in a safe environment. For tips 

on how—and when—to begin the conversation, visit 

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

#TalkTheyHearYou PEP20-03-01-020
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Arinza Martin, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 70-116;

Third District

October 29, 1971.

Bruce Stratton, of Defender Project, of Ottawa, for appellant.

Edward P. Drolet, State’s Attorney, of Kankakee, for the People.

Mr. JUSTICE DIXON

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant was convicted at a jury trial upon a charge of “Unlawful Use of Weapons” in violation of Chapter 38, Sec. 24-1 (a) (7), Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969. Defendant appeals.

An issue presented upon appeal is whether the evidence supports a conviction of the violation charged.

At the time of the arrest, defendant was the driver of a car owned by Robert Lott, Jr., who was seated in the rear on the right side. Melvin Rush was seated to the right of the driver. After defendant and Rush left the car, the arresting officer saw Lott trying to put something under the front seat. He ordered Lott out of the car. When Lott started to climb out of the back seat a trench coat was pulled aside uncovering the barrels of a shotgun. The gun was lying right next to Lott on the back seat. It had a sawed-off barrel of less than 18 inches.

All three passengers were indicted. Lott, the owner of the car and the rear seat passenger, who had been sitting on or next to the gun, *799jumped bond and was not present at the trial. The only witness at the trial was the arresting officer.

At the close of the State’s case both Rush and defendant Martin made a motion for directed verdict. The motions were allowed as to Rush but denied as to Martin on the theory that the jury could infer that Martin was in constructive possession by reason of his driving the car.

 To apply the doctrine of constructive possession there must be a showing that the defendant had the immediate and exclusive control of the area where the items allegedly possessed were situated. *People v. Millis*116 Ill. App.2d 283.

It is clear from the evidence in this case that the gun was in the possession of Lott, the back seat passenger.

As the conviction cannot be sustained upon the evidence, it is not necessary to consider the other issues raised by defendant.

Judgment reversed.

ALLOY, P. J., and STOUDER, J., concur.
#### § 301.317 Medical treatment following release.

Federal Prison lndustries, Inc., may not pay the cost of medical, hospital treatment, or any other related expense incurred after release from confinement unless such cost is authorized by the Claims Examiner in advance, or the Claims Examiner determines that circumstances warrant the waiver of this requirement. Generally, the payment of such costs is limited to impairment evaluations, or treatments intended to reduce the degree of physical impairment, conducted at the direction of the Claims Examiner. The amount of a payment for medical treatment is limited to reasonable expenses incurred, such as those amounts authorized under the applicable fee schedule established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1395w-4 for the Department of Health and Human Services Medicare program.

[55 FR 9296, Mar. 12, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 2667, Jan. 18, 1994]
§ 2.50 Revocation hearing procedure. ( a ) The purpose of the revocation hearing shall be to determine whether the parolee has violated the conditions of his release and, if so, whether his parole or mandatory release should be revoked or reinstated.
( b ) The alleged violator may present witnesses, and documentary evidence in his behalf. However, the presiding hearing officer or examiner panel may limit or exclude any irrelevant or repetitious statement or documentary evidence.
( c ) At a local revocation hearing, the Commission may on the request of the alleged violator or on its own motion, request the attendance of persons who have given statements upon which revocation may be based. Those witnesses who are present shall be made available for questioning and cross-examination in the presence of the alleged violator unless the presiding hearing officer or examiner panel finds good cause for their non-attendance. Adverse witnesses will not be requested to appear at institutional revocation hearings.
( d ) All evidence upon which the finding of violation may be based shall be disclosed to the alleged violator at or before the revocation hearing. The hearing officer or examiner panel may disclose documentary evidence by permitting the alleged violator to examine the document during the hearing, or where appropriate, by reading or summarizing the document in the presence of the alleged violator.
( e ) In lieu of an attorney, an alleged violator may be represented at a revocation hearing by a person of his choice. However, the role of such non-attorney representative shall be limited to offering a statement on the alleged violator's behalf with regard to reparole or reinstatement to supervision.
( f ) A revocation decision may be appealed under the provisions of § 2.26 or § 2.27 as applicable.
[42 FR 39809, Aug. 5, 1977, as amended at 44 FR 3408, Jan. 16, 1979; 51 FR 32785, Sept. 16, 1986; 52 FR 33409, Sept. 3, 1987]
# C_2012258EN.01000601.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein (Germany)) — Georges Erny v Daimler AG — Werk Wörth

(Case C-172/11) (1)

1

(Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 7(4) - Principle of non-discrimination - Top-up amount on wages paid to workers placed on a scheme of part-time work prior to retirement - Cross-border workers subject to income tax in the Member State of residence - Notional taking into account of the tax on wages of the Member State of employment)

2012/C 258/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georges Erny

Applicant:

Defendant: Daimler AG — Werk Wörth

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Landau Divisions — Interpretation of Article 45 TFEU and of Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English special edition 1968 (II), p. 475) — Top-up amount on wages paid to workers placed on a scheme of part-time work prior to retirement — Less favourable pay for cross-border workers subject to income tax only in their State of residence as a result of the taking into account, when calculating that top-up amount, of the tax on wages notionally payable in the State of employment

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community preclude clauses in collective and individual agreements under which a top-up amount such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is paid by an employer under a scheme of part-time working for older employees in preparation for retirement, must be calculated in such a way that the tax on wages payable in the Member State of employment is notionally deducted when the basis for the calculation of that top-up amount is being established, even though, under a tax convention for the avoidance of double taxation, the pay, salaries and similar remuneration paid to workers who do not reside in the Member State of employment are taxable in their Member State of residence. In accordance with Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1612/68, such clauses are null and void. Article 45 TFEU and the provisions of Regulation No 1612/68 leave the Member States or the social partners free to choose between the different solutions suitable for achieving the objective of those respective provisions.

---

(1)  OJ C 226 30.7.2011.

1

---