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

> Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998 (Cwth)
> 
> 
> This report is provided in accordance with section 108H of the Australian Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cwth) (SRC Act).  Telstra holds a Class B licence under the SRC Act.  This licence allows Telstra to both self-insure and to contract out the administration of its workers' compensation claims to the private sector.
> 
> 
> In fiscal 2002 Telstra conducted a comprehensive review of its workers' compensation and rehabilitation functions.  As a result there have been significant changes to the workers' compensation claims management processes, plus there has been a change in the rehabilitation providers to Telstra.
> 
> 
> An overall compensation and rehabilitation audit methodology has also been developed that measures both the SRC Act regulatory requirements as well as the management systems of the workers' compensation and rehabilitation providers.
> 
> 
> During fiscal 2002 Telstra received 2,056 new claims for workers' compensation which is a reduction of 187 from the new claims received in fiscal 2001.  As at 30 June 2002 Telstra had 2,972 open claims at hand, which is a reduction of 1,039 on the open claims numbers as at the same time last year.

---

| |  | 
| |  |
EXHIBIT 23















<PAGE>


                    INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON SCHEDULE


The Board of Directors
Delta Mills, Inc.

Under date of July 26, 2002, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets of
Delta Mills, Inc. as of June 29, 2002 and June 30, 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholder's equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended June 29, 2002, as contained in
the 2002 annual report on Form 10-K. These consolidated financial statements and
our report thereon are included in the annual report on Form 10-K. In connection
with our audit of the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also
audited the related consolidated financial statement schedule for each of the
years in the three-year period ended June 29, 2002, as listed in Item 14(d) of
Form 10-K. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the
financial statement schedule based on our audit.

In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation
to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.



                                           /s/ KPMG  LLP
                                           -------------
                                           KPMG  LLP




Greenville, South Carolina
July 26, 2002
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 DECEMBER 14, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-14125

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-01282-CV-T-24-EAJ

ROBIN ODUM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(December 14, 2010)

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and COAR, District *

Judge.

Honorable David H. Coar, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois,

*

sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:

Appellant Robin Odum appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment to Odum’s employer, Appellee Government Employees Insurance

Company (“GEICO”), on Odum’s claims under the Private Florida Whistleblower

Act (“FWA”), Fla. Stat. §§ 448.101-448.105. 

Odum argues that the district court erred in finding that he did not present a

prima facie case under the FWA because he did not engage in a protected activity

when he reported what he falsely believed to be a fire code violation. Odum also 

argues that the district court erred in finding that GEICO advanced a legitimate,

nonretalitory reason for terminating him – his dishonesty regarding a court

appearance. Odum contends he has produced sufficient evidence to show that this

purported justification for his termination was pretextual. 

This court reviews de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment and

will construe all the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130, 1136 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Because we can decide this appeal without addressing the first argument Odum

presents, which is a question of first impression both in this court and in the

Supreme Court of Florida, we decline to address it. Instead, even if we assume

2
arguendo that Odum presented a prima facie case under the FWA, GEICO

articulated that it terminated him based on a good faith belief that he dishonestly

reported sick leave, which is a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason. Because Odum

failed to present any rebuttal evidence to GEICO’s legitimate reason beyond his

own conclusory beliefs, he has failed to show pretext. Accordingly, we affirm the

1

district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of GEICO. 

AFFIRMED.

This court has reviewed the record in its entirety and finds no credible evidence of pretext. 1

3
EXHIBIT
      32.1








**ESCALA
      GROUP, INC.**


**SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**





In
      connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Escala Group, Inc. for
      the
      period ended March 31, 2006, I, Jose Miguel Herrero, President and Chief
      Executive Officer of Escala Group, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.
      This
      Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the
      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and






2.
      The
      information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of Escala Group, Inc.







Dated:  May
      9,
      2006


/s/ Jose
      Miguel
      Herrero


Jose
      Miguel Herrero, President and Chief Executive Officer
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.23  


 
  Description of Purchase of Services of Dr. Galleon Graetz
  September 8, 1999    
    
    From    
    
    Carenet
  Im Gruet
  Meilen CH-8706
  SWITZERLAND

  


        Whereas, BTi would like to continue its current working relationship with Dr. Galleon Graetz and, 


        Whereas,
the use of Dr. Graetz's time has become larger than is customary for he role of a member of the Board of Directors, 



        Therefore,
BTi would like to contract with MZR for Dr. Graetz's time over the next 6 months as follows. 


        The
areas of effort to be addressed by Dr. Graetz are as follows: 



	1)
	Coordination
and evaluation of investigation of the use of MSI in the evaluation of ADD, OCD and other disorders in cooperation with Dr. Clark in Las Vegas, and Mr. Steve
Cobb at BTi.



	2)
	Coordination
of interface with Novartis to explore their interest in the use of MSI for new drug development.



	3)
	Continued
coordination of efforts in the sale of an MSI system to Dr. Krämer at the epilepsy clinic in Zurich.



	4)
	Facilitate
Dr. Jeanmonod beginning his work with the BTi system in Konstanz.



	5)
	Assist
BTi with the completion of the "Positive Symptoms' patent. 




        Dr. Graetz
will coordinate these efforts with Scott Buchanan, President & CEO of BTi. 


        It
is expected that this effort would not exceed 30 hours/month. 


        For
this effort BTi will reimburse MZR in the amount of $10,000/month payable at the beginning of each month. BTi will pay within 15 days against an invoice from MZR. 


        BTi
will reimburse all other expenses as incurred based on receipts turned into BTi. 


        This
effort is expected to have begun August 1, 1999 and is expected to last through January 31, 2000. This arrangement can be extended at any time by written mutual
consent of BTi and Dr. Graetz. 





Note:    This
arrangement was executed under a purchase agreement and has been extended verbally on an ongoing basis. Billing and payment has been subject to negotiation of objectives met
and financial status of the Company. 









QuickLinks


Description of Purchase of Services of Dr. Galleon Graetz September 8, 1999 From Carenet Im Gruet Meilen CH-8706 SWITZERLAND
§ 111.23 Retention of records. ( a ) *Place of retention.* A licensed customs broker must maintain originals of the records referred to in this part, including any records stored in electronic formats, within the customs territory of the United States and in accordance with the provisions of this part and part 163 of this chapter.
( b ) *Period of retention.* The records described in this section, other than powers of attorney, must be retained for at least 5 years after the date of entry. Powers of attorney must be retained until revoked, and revoked powers of attorney and letters of revocation must be retained for 5 years after the date of revocation or for 5 years after the date the client ceases to be an “active client” as defined in § 111.29(b)(2)(ii), whichever period is later. When merchandise is withdrawn from a bonded warehouse, records relating to the withdrawal must be retained for 5 years from the date of withdrawal of the last merchandise withdrawn under the entry.
[CBP Dec. 12-12, 77 FR 33966, June 8, 2012, as amended by CBP Dec. 22-21, 87 FR 63316, Oct. 18, 2022]
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS -- REGION I

 475 Allendale Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-02-056 August 29, 2002

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331

NRC ISSUES ASSESSMENT FOR INDIAN POINT 2, CHANGES DESIGNATION;

 PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING PLANT SCHEDULED FOR SEPT. 4

 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a mid-cycle performance assessment letter for

the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant. It has also scheduled a public meeting for Wednesday,

September 4, to discuss the assessment as well as other developments involving the Buchanan, N.Y.,

facility.

 In the letter to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., which owns and operates Indian Point 2, the

NRC informed the company it was closing out a “red” finding issued to the facility in late 2000 and

removing its designation as a “multiple degraded cornerstones” plant. That designation was the result

of previous inspection findings at the plant associated with a reactor shutdown with complications in

August 1999 and a steam generator tube failure in February 2000. The NRC has determined, through

inspections and assessments, that Entergy has substantially addressed performance weaknesses

underlying those degraded cornerstones to warrant the designation change.

 Because a “yellow” finding -- issued late last year as a result of control room operator training

deficiencies -- remains open, Indian Point 2 will now shift to the “degraded cornerstone” category. 

Consequently, the NRC will continue to closely monitor improvement efforts at the plant.

 At the public meeting on September 4, NRC staff will meet with Entergy representatives to

discuss performance improvement efforts at Indian Point 2 and recent NRC inspections of those

efforts. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. in the Vincent F. Nyberg General Meeting Room

at Cortlandt Town Hall, 1 Heady Street, Cortlandt, N.Y. The public is invited to observe the meeting

and will have an opportunity to ask questions of NRC staff before the session is adjourned.

 Specific topics to be discussed will be Entergy’s performance improvement efforts at Indian

Point 2 as described in the plant’s Fundamentals Improvement Plan. In addition, NRC staff will

present the results of recent inspections and assessments conducted at the plant, including a team

inspection conducted in June and July.

 Copies on the NRC’s assessment letter for Indian Point 2 will be available on the agency’s web

site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/inpt_2002q2.pdf

###
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. 00-158 October 16,2000

NRC ISSUES STRATEGIC FIVE YEAR PLAN

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its second Strategic Plan which describes the

agency’s mission, the outcomes it plans to achieve and how it will determine whether it has achieved

success through Fiscal Year 2005.

The plan emphasizes protection of public health and safety as the NRC’s highest priority in the

regulation of nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel cycle facilities, nuclear waste disposal, and the

industrial and medical uses of nuclear materials. However, as stressed by

Chairman Richard A. Meserve, “To be a successful regulator, we must consider the effects of our

decisions on the public and the industries we regulate. Therefore, to accomplish our mission in the

coming years, our performance goals in the strategic plan also include making our activities and

decisions more effective and efficient, enhancing public confidence, and reducing unnecessary

regulatory burden.”

The plan includes goals, strategies and performance measures for the agency’s four business

areas that follow.

ˇ NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

Strategic Goal: Prevent radiation-related deaths and illnesses, promote the common

defense and security, and protect the environment in the use of civilian nuclear reactors.

ˇ NUCLEAR MATERIALS SAFETY

Strategic Goal: Prevent radiation-related deaths and illnesses, promote the common

defense and security, and protect the environment in the use of source, byproduct and

special nuclear material.

ˇ NUCLEAR WASTE SAFETY

Strategic Goal: Prevent significant adverse impacts from radioactive waste to the current

and future public health and safety and the environment, and promote the common

defense and security.

ˇ INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY SUPPORT

Strategic Goal: Support U.S. interests in the safe and secure use of nuclear materials and

in nuclear nonproliferation.

In addition, the NRC has developed four corporate management strategies which describe how

the agency will conduct business to successfully accomplish its strategic and performance goals. These

are: 1) employ innovative and sound business practices; 2) sustain a high-performing, diverse
workforce; 3) provide proactive information management and information technology services; and 4)

communicate strategic change.

The NRC issued its first Strategic Plan in September 1997 and is required by the Government

Performance and Results Act, to update it every three years.

The Strategic Plan (NUREG-1614, Volume 2) is available at

www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1614/V2/index.html on NRC’s web site. Copies are available from

the U.S. Government Printing Office by calling 202-512-1800.

###
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-02-048 November 8, 2002

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC STAFF TO HOLD MEETING WITH DCS ON NOVEMBER 12

TO DISCUSS CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR MIXED OXIDE FUEL FACILITY

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with Duke, Cogema, Stone and Webster, or

DCS, at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 12, to discuss the company’s plans for construction of a

mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River site in

South Carolina. 

The meeting will be held in the NRC’s Region II offices on the 24th floor of the Sam Nunn

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street in Atlanta, and will be open to public observation. NRC

officials will be available prior to the close of the meeting to answer questions from interested

observers.

DCS submitted an application to the NRC for the facility in February 2001. The company has

plans to build and operate a MOX facility that would convert surplus weapons-grade plutonium,

supplied by the Department of Energy, into fuel for use in commercial nuclear reactors.

DCS must receive NRC approval prior to initiating construction and operation of the mixed

oxide processing facility. The facility must be built in accordance with strict safety standards set forth

in the agency’s regulations. The NRC expects to make a decision on the MOX construction

authorization request late next year.

###
<PAGE>

                       [LETTERHEAD OF DIXON ODOM PLLC]

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

To the Board of Directors
Great Pee Dee Bancorp, Inc.
Cheraw, South Carolina

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
Great Pee Dee Bancorp, Inc. on Form S-8 (No. 333-79339) of our report dated
August 7, 2000 on the consolidated financial statements of Great Pee Dee
Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary as of and for the years ended June 30, 2000 and
1999, which appears in the 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Great Pee Dee
Bancorp, Inc.

/s/ Dixon Odom PLLC
Sanford, North Carolina
September 22, 1999
[EXHIBIT 10.1]



   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



TO:  Link Plus Corporation


As independent certified public accountants, we hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in this
Registration Statement on Form S-8, of our report, which
includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the substantial
doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going
concern, dated September 20, 2002 included in the Link Plus
Corporation's Form 10-SB, and to all references to our Firm
included in this Registration Statement


                             /s/ RUSSELL BEDFORD
                             STEFANOU MIRCHANDANI, LLP

                             Russell Bedford Stefanou
                                Mirchandani, LLP
                           Certified Public Accountants

McLean, Virginia
November 6, 2002
### §1720. Criminal penalties

Any person who commits an act for which a civil penalty is provided in section 1719(d) of this title shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $50,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.

(Pub. L. 97–451, title I, §110, Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2455.)
### §1963. Protection of grounds

It shall be the duty of the Capitol police on and after April 29, 1876, to prevent any portion of the Capitol Grounds and terraces from being used as playgrounds or otherwise, so far as may be necessary to protect the public property, turf and grass from destruction or injury.

(Apr. 29, 1876, ch. 86, 19 Stat. 41.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 214 of former Title 40, prior to the enactment of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, §1, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.1024 Indirect materials.

An indirect material, as defined in § 10.1002(n) of this subpart, will be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether a good is originating.

# Example.

Korean Producer A produces good C using non-originating material B. Producer A imports non-originating rubber gloves for use by workers in the production of good C. Good C is subject to a tariff shift requirement. As provided in § 10.1014(b)(1) of this subpart and General Note 33, each of the non-originating materials in good C must undergo the specified change in tariff classification in order for good C to be considered originating. Although non-originating material B must undergo the applicable tariff shift in order for good C to be considered originating, the rubber gloves do not because they are indirect materials and are disregarded for purposes of determining whether the good is originating.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-02-0064 - Results from Pilot Program for NMSS Initiative on Streamlining Inspection and Enforcement

Accession Number: ML003778261

Date Released: Monday, April 22, 2002

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML020670096 - SECY-02-0064 - Results from Pilot Program for NMSS Initiative on Streamlining Inspection and Enforcement (4 page(s), 4/5/2002)
    - ML020670267 - SECY-02-0064 - Attachment - Medical Pilot Program Inspection and Enforcement Data (3 page(s), 4/5/2002)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.3024 Indirect materials.

An indirect material, as defined in § 10.3013(h), will be considered to be an originating material without regard to where it is produced.

# Example.

Colombian Producer A produces good C using non-originating material B. Producer A imports non-originating rubber gloves for use by workers in the production of good C. Good C is subject to a tariff shift requirement. As provided in § 10.3014(b)(1) and General Note 34, each of the non-originating materials in good C must undergo the specified change in tariff classification in order for good C to be considered originating. Although non-originating material B must undergo the applicable tariff shift in order for good C to be considered originating, the rubber gloves do not because they are indirect materials and are considered originating without regard to where they are produced.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 16
- 00044
- CV KAREN HALL , Appellant v. CITY OF BRYAN, TEXAS , Appellee

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 12
- 000391
- CV
- 272

ORDER
This is an appeal of a final judgment. There was previously an interlocutory appeal from the same trial court proceeding. Appellee asserts that it wants this Court to take judicial notice of the record filed in the interlocutory appeal. It is not clear why the Court would need to take judicial notice of the record from a prior appeal. Further, it does not appear that taking judicial notice of the record is necessary or proper. It appears, however, what appellee actually seeks is to be able to reference the record from the interlocutory appeal as part of the record in this appeal. According to appellee, the recordHall v. City of Bryan, Texas Page 2

currently on file in this proceeding does not include the trial court record prior to the interlocutory appeal. To save cost, appellee sugges ts the record could be transferred to this proceeding. We agree. Therefore, the Clerk of the Tenth Court of Appeals is ordered to copy, scan, and electronically enter the trial court record from 10

- 12

- 00248

- CV into 10

- 16

- 00044

- CV. The original hard cop y of the record from 10

- 12

- 00248

- CV will remain with the Court’s shuck in storage where it will be retained until destroyed or further order of the Court or the Texas Supreme Court. Appellee’s Unopposed Motion for Court to Take Notice is dismissed as moot

.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion dismissed Order issued and filed June 2, 2016