alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:35 PM
To: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bob Smith; Brenda Edwards; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gayt an; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; David Flaten; Emily Marchetti; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fe rnstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Cork ran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coug hlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaro n; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Pamela Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard W. Parker; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert va n Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo Subject: Fwd: MVLI LCC & NIA with 2010 material prices

Dear Colleagues,

Attached, as requested and promised, is the corrected LCC/NIA for liquid immersed transformers based on 2010 materials prices. Th anks to Chris and Katie for quickly following through on this.

All best, Richard Parker

Attached are the corrected LCC and downstream NIA results based on the 2010 material prices. Please di stribute as you see fit.

-- Chris

---- Chris Bolduc Energy Efficiency Standards Group Environmental Energy T echnologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

t. 416-535-7546

c. 647-832-4021
#### Charles Trevisani, Defendant in Error, v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Company, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 16,735.

*Telegraphs—hearsay evidence.*Where a labor agent sues a telegraph company for failure to deliver a telegram, whereby laborers that he had procured in another city were not met on their arrival at their destination, evidence by plaintiff that he had been told that the men had left their city and had arrived at their destination is incompetent.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William H. Hinebattgh, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1910.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed December 30, 1912.

William E. O’Neill, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff, the defendant in error, who files no brief in this court, brought suit against the defendant, here the plaintiff in error, to recover damages claimed to have been suffered by him by reason of the failure of the defendant to deliver a telegram sent by the plaintiff from Philadelphia to his agent at his Chicago office. A jury was waived and on a trial before the court a finding was entered for the plaintiff for $141.92, and a judgment rendered therefor.

The plaintiff’s business was that of securing laborers for railroad companies and he was called a labor agent. The evidence conclusively shows that the plaintiff sent a telegram by the defendant and it was not delivered, as alleged by him, and that he was damaged thereby. The plaintiff claimed, as one of the elements of damages, that he had an order from the Northern Pacific Railroad Co. to furnish it as many laborers as *140he could get to go to North Dakota to work for said company. Not being able to get men in Chicago, he went to Philadelphia to try and secure them. While there he arranged by telephone with parties at Pitts-burg to send men from Pittsburg to Chicago, and it was in reference to meeting these men and securing them for the said Railroad Company that he wired his agent at his Chicago office. The plaintiff’s agent at Chicago, not receiving the said telegram, because of defendant’s negligence, did not meet the said men the plaintiff claims arrived at Chicago from Pittsburg, and he thereby lost the sum of three dollars for each of the said men so secured, and the court so found. There is no evidence in this record that any men left Pittsburg or arrived in Chicago, as claimed by the plaintiff, except the testimony of the plaintiff, who was in Philadelphia at the time. He insisted, however, that he knew his statements in relation thereto were true because he was so told. This testimony was manifestly incompetent and furnished no basis upon which the court could properly assess damages.

The ¡judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)
**Title:****Annual report**
 
2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc:ID 1.27:UZ 1/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000640800
 
November 1, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. 1:20-cv-22613-JEM

HELEN SWARTZ, Individually,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CG FAIRWINDS LLC,

a Florida Limited Liability Company, 

and LENNOX MIAMI CORP.,

a Florida Corporation,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff and Defendant, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby move 

to dismiss this action with prejudice, a resolution of all matters in dispute having been made 

pursuant to a Settlement Agreement executed between the parties. 

Respectfully submitted,

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

/s/ Lawrence A. Fuller

Lawrence A. Fuller, Esq. 

(FBN 0180470)

Lfuller@fullerfuller.com

Fuller, Fuller & Associates, P.A.

12000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 502

North Miami, FL 33181

Telephone: (305) 891-5199

Facsimile: (305) 893-9505

Dated: December 3, 2020

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

/s/ Rene J. Gonzalez-Llorens

Rene J. Gonzalez-Llorens, Esq.

(FBN 53790)

rgl@shutts.com

Douglas M. Kramer, Esq. -

dkramer@shutts.com

Shutts & Bowen, LLP

200 S. Biscayne Boulevard – Suite 4100

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: (305) 347-7337

Facsimile: (305)347-7836

Dated: December 3, 2020

Case 1:20-cv-22613-JEM Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2020 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

Case Number: 20-61342-CIV-MORENO

SEAPOWER, INC, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

TONBO IMAGING PTE LTD,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 10), filed on August 

13, 2020. 

THE COURT has considered the motion, the opposition, the reply, and pertinent portions 

of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is

ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED for insufficient service of process. 

Plaintiff is a Virginia corporation with principle place of business in Broward County. Its 

owner, Vishal Kamal, previously consulted for the American subsidiary of Tonbo Imaging Ptd 

Ltd (the Defendant here). That subsidiary, Tonbo Imaging Inc., no longer exists. Plaintiff claims 

it fraudulently morphed into Pixels on Target, LLC to avoid a federal investigation. Plaintiff 

provides no evidence of this claim, and Pixels on Target is not owned by Tonbo Imaging Ptd 

Ltd. It is owned by two individuals—Jagrut Patel and Sumeet Suri. 

After Tonbo Imaging Inc. ceased to exist, Plaintiff renewed its contact with the Singaporean 

parent company, i.e. Defendant here. That contract included a forum selection clause designating 

Singapore as the venue for any disputes relating to the contract. Still, Plaintiff sued in this 

Case 0:20-cv-61342-FAM Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/15/2021 Page 1 of 2
2

District, and served an employee, Jose Korneluk with the summons and complaint even though 

those documents were addressed to Jagrut Patel and Sumeet Suri. 

Even though Plaintiff cites Fla. Stat. § 48.161, which provides for substituted service on a 

nonresident through the Secretary of State, all the facts indicate Plaintiff attempted service 

through Fla. Stat. § 48.081, service on a corporation. The statute provides that service can be 

made on certain employees of the corporation. Jose Korneluk was none of the employees listed 

in the statute. In fact, he is not even employed by Defendant. 

The parties dispute whether Pixels on Target LLC is a successor corporation to Tonbo 

Imaging Inc. under Florida law, and could thus be served as the parent company’s agent. 

However, even if that were possible, service on Pixels on Target LLC was not done properly. 

In its briefing, Plaintiff asks for the opportunity to re-attempt service in a proper manner. 

The Court will allow the Plaintiff to re-attempt proper service, and then can address the of 

personal jurisdiction and forum selection when they are squarely presented.

Plaintiff has until March 15, 2021 to complete proper service.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 15th of January 2021.

______________________________________

FEDERICO A. MORENO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Case 0:20-cv-61342-FAM Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/15/2021 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-22766-CIV-WILLIAMS

DIANA FLOREZ,

Plaintiff,

v. 

WORKFORCE SOLUTION STAFFING, LLC, et al., 

Defendants

_________________________________________/

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’s Report 

and Recommendation (“the Report”) (DE 46) on the partial motions for summary judgment filed 

by Plaintiff Diana Florez (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Workforce Solution Staffing, LLC, Martha 

De La Cruz, and Fernando De La Cruz (“Defendants”). (DE 30; DE 32.) In the Report, Chief 

Judge Torres recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary 

Judgment (“Defendants’ Motion”) (DE 30) and grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Partial 

Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff’s Motion”). (DE 32.) No objections to the Report have 

been filed.

Upon an independent review of the Report, the record, and applicable case law, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The conclusions in the Report (DE 46) are AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. Defendants’ Motion (DE 30) is GRANTED. Counts VII, VIII, and IX of Plaintiff’s Complaint 

(DE 1-1) are DISMISSED. 

Case 1:20-cv-22766-KMW Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2022 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2 

3. Plaintiff’s Motion (DE 32) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

1 Plaintiff’s 

Motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s undisputed claims that: (i) Plaintiff was 

covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) during the time period relevant to 

this case; (ii) Defendant Martha De La Cruz constitutes an “employer” under the FLSA; 

and (iii) Plaintiff constitutes an “employee” under the FLSA. However, Plaintiff’s Motion is 

DENIED with respect to all remaining issues. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida on this 23rd day of February, 2022.

1 The Report states, “To be clear, Plaintiff[‘s partial motion for summary judgment] failed on every issue that 

Defendants’ challenged and only succeeded on the issues in which Defendants were in agreement.” (DE 

46 at 17 n.2.) The Court concurs with this assessment. 

Case 1:20-cv-22766-KMW Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2022 Page 2 of 2
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 00-023 February 14, 2000

NRC ISSUES SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT

ON OCONEE LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued its safety evaluation report on the

proposed renewal of the operating licenses for the three Oconee nuclear power plants near Seneca,

South Carolina. In the report, the staff concludes there are no safety concerns that would preclude

renewal of the license.

Duke Energy Corporation submitted an application to the NRC in July 1998 to

renew the licenses for Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 for another 20 years after the current licenses expire on

February 6, 2013, for Unit 1; October 6, 2013, for Unit 2: and July 19, 2014, for Unit 3.

A copy of the safety evaluation report is available in the NRC Public Document Room at 2120

L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555; telephone: 202/634-3273. A copy will also be available at:

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports/renewal.htm on the NRC’s Website.

As previously announced, a subcommittee of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards will meet February 24 in Clemson, South Carolina, to review the safety evaluation report,

and the full committee will later issue a report discussing the results of its review. Other steps in the

NRC’s review of Duke Energy’s license renewal application will include an inspection by the agency’s

Region II office in Atlanta and final review by the Commission.

###
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-97-40 April 11, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH PENNSYLVANIA TESTING LABORATORIES

TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF REQUIREMENTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with

officials of Pennsylvania Testing Laboratories on Wednesday,

April 16, to discuss six apparent violations of NRC requirements.

This predecisional enforcement conference will be held in the

NRC's Regional Office in King of Prussia, PA. It begins at 10:00

and is open to the public for observation.

Pennsylvania Testing Laboratories, of West Pittston, Pa.,

holds a license to possess portable moisture density gauges. In

January of this year, the NRC suspended the company's license to

use NRC-licensed material for failing to pay its 1996 annual fee.

The alleged violations were found by an NRC inspector during

a special inspection on March 11. The inspector found that the

company had stored licensed material at unauthorized locations

and that it had failed to: (1) provide complete and accurate

information to the NRC; (2) lock the portable gauge in its

transportation case when not in use in the field; (3) test the

gauges for leaks at the required frequency; (4) exchange wholebody radiation measuring film badges at the required monthly

frequency; and (5) maintain copies of records required by the

company's license and NRC regulations.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference

does not mean that the NRC has determined that a violation has

occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the

purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and

safety significance; to provide the licensee an opportunity to

point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC

inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline its

proposed corrective actions. No decision on the apparent

violations will be made at this conference. Those decisions will

be made by senior NRC officials at a later time.

#
### §261. Applicability of "area of production" regulations

No employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended [29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], on account of the failure of such employer to pay an employee minimum wages, or to pay an employee overtime compensation, for or on account of an activity engaged in by such employee prior to December 26, 1946, if such employer—

(1) was not so subject by reason of the definition of an "area of production", by a regulation of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, which regulation was applicable at the time of performance of the activity even though at that time the regulation was invalid; or

(2) would not have been so subject if the regulation signed on December 18, 1946 (Federal Register, Vol. 11, p. 14648) had been in force on and after October 24, 1938.

(May 14, 1947, ch. 52, §12, 61 Stat. 89.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, referred to in text, is act June 25, 1938, ch. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, as amended, which is classified generally to chapter 8 (§201 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 201 of this title and Tables.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of Labor, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of Labor, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 6, of 1950, §§1, 2, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1263, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
### §795o. Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subchapter $27,548,000 for fiscal year 2015, $29,676,000 for fiscal year 2016, $30,292,000 for fiscal year 2017, $30,963,000 for fiscal year 2018, $31,691,000 for fiscal year 2019, and $32,363,000 for fiscal year 2020.

(Pub. L. 93–112, title VI, §610, as added Pub. L. 113–128, title IV, §461(11), July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1684.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Prior sections 795o to 795r were omitted in the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 105–220.

Section 795o, Pub. L. 93–112, title VI, §636, as added Pub. L. 102–569, title VI, §621(a), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4442, related to collection of client information.

Another prior section 795o, Pub. L. 93–112, title VI, §636, as added Pub. L. 99–506, title VII, §704(a)(1), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1836, related to collection of client information, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 102–569, §621(a).

Section 795p, Pub. L. 93–112, title VI, §637, as added Pub. L. 102–569, title VI, §621(a), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4442, contained savings provision. See section 795m of this title.

Another prior section 795p, Pub. L. 93–112, title VI, §637, as added Pub. L. 99–506, title VII, §704(a)(1), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1837, contained a savings provision not prohibiting a State from carrying out post-employment services leading to supported employment, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 102–569, §621(a).

Section 795q, Pub. L. 93–112, title VI, §638, as added Pub. L. 102–569, title VI, §621(a), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4442, authorized appropriations.

Another prior section 795q, Pub. L. 93–112, title VI, §638, as added Pub. L. 99–506, title VII, §704(a)(1), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1837; amended Pub. L. 100–630, title II, §207(h), Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3314; Pub. L. 102–52, §7(c), June 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 262, authorized appropriations for fiscal years 1987 to 1992, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 102–569, §621(a).

Section 795r, Pub. L. 93–112, title VI, §641, formerly §622, as added Pub. L. 95–602, title II, §201, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2994; amended Pub. L. 99–506, title I, §103(d)(2)(C), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1810; Pub. L. 100–630, title II, §207(c), Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3313; renumbered §641 and amended Pub. L. 102–569, title I, §102(p)(39), title VI, §612(a)(2), (3), (b), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4361, 4438, related to business opportunities for individuals with disabilities.
#### Leonard Rabasco, Appellant, v. New Rochelle Hospital Association et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Close, P. J., Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., concurs in the result; Hagarty, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum: My opinion is that the X-ray technician was rendering a medical service in taking pictures of the child. Her act in directing plaintiff in the manner of holding the child while the picture was being taken was incident to that service. The independent contractor theory should not be further refined to the end, as in this case, that the child herself could not recover for the negligence of the X-ray operator while a third person could so recover. All the acts of the operator were in the course of the medical treatment. This ease is to be distinguished from *Bickford*v. *Peck Memorial Hospital*(266 App. Div. 875), where the negligence consisted of assigning a patient on entrance to the hospital to an inadequate bed. That act, performed independently of any treatment, we held to be administrative in nature. Defendant Chilko was the staff roentgenologist and in charge of the X-ray machinery, but there is no proof of any omission *972by Mm properly to inspect or maintain the machines. He was not present on the day of the accident and the technician was not his employee, but an employee of the hospital. As to defendant Chilko, the judgment is unanimously affirmed, without costs.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 85

**Question 85:** In §20.1902, posting of areas is based upon "dose equivalent." Is this "deep," "shallow," "lens of eye," "total effective" or some combination of the above?

**Answer:** These posting requirements are based on the deep dose equivalent for "radiation areas" and "high radiation areas" and the absorbed dose at a tissue depth of 1 cm (1000 mg/square cm) for "very high radiation areas." See the answer to Question 74.

References: 10 CFR 20.1003, 10 CFR 20.1902)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, December 13, 2017
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-00-01 January 4, 2000

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330)

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC ASSIGNS NEW SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR AT GINNA NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., have selected

Christopher Welch as the new resident inspector at the Ginna nuclear power plant near

Rochester, N.Y.

Most recently, Mr. Welch was a reactor engineer in the NRC Region I Office. He joined

the NRC in 1997. Prior to that, he worked as an assistant chief test engineer at the Portsmouth

Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, N.H. Mr. Welch earned a Bachelor of Science degree in marine

engineering from the Massachusetts Maritime Academy.

Mr. Welch joins Senior Resident Inspector Ho Nieh at Ginna. They can be reached at

315/524-6935.

#
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 002 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tel. 301-415-8200 (Saturday, January 01, 2000)

OPA@NRC.GOV TIME 1:30 a.m.

All NUCLEAR FACILITIES IN THE MIDWEST

TRANSITION SAFELY THROUGH THE Y2K ROLLOVER

All 35 nuclear power plants and one fuel facility in the Central Time Zone have reported

to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they have transitioned safely through the Y2K

rollover.

As of 1:30 a.m. today, 95 of the nation's 103 operating nuclear power plants and both fuel

cycle facilities have transitioned safely through the Y2K rollover. Eight reactors in the Pacific

and Mountain Time Zones are awaiting midnight as the NRC continues to monitor their

operations from its emergency operations center in Rockville, Maryland.

##