alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/planning/plandocs/plan/fp_abstr.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/planning/plandocs/deis/eis_summ.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/planning/plandocs/deis/eis_abst.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/planning/plandocs/maps/map_list.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/planning/plandocs/use_cd/use_cd.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/planning/plandocs/contact/contact.pdf
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134896 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,

v SC: 134896 Justices
COA: 278544

JEFFREY RICHARD MOORE, Defendant-Appellant. Wayne CC: 06-004980

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
January 8, 2008
Clerk
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frederick Richardson, Respondent, against Marinette Paper Co. et al., Appellants, and New York State Division of Highways et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

—-Appeal by employer and insurance carrier from an award of compensation which imposed proportionate liability of two thirds of the award on appellants, and one third on the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. Claimant had two accidents, one in July, 1935, and the other in May, 1943. The board found that the second accident aggravated the herniated disc pathology which claimant suffered as the result of the first accident, and precipitated the necessity for an operation. There is evidence to sustain the findings. The matter of apportioning liability was within the board’s fact finding and discretionary powers. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s. Compensation Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Foster and Deyo, JJ.
No: II-13-39 May 22, 2013

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC Begins Special Inspection at Harris Nuclear Power Plant 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is launching a special inspection at Duke Energy’s Harris 

nuclear power plant to assess the circumstances surrounding the discovery of a quarter-inch flaw on the 

plant’s reactor vessel head.

 The plant is located near New Hill, N.C., about 20 miles southwest of Raleigh.

 The plant was shut down on May 15 when further analysis of ultrasonic data gathered during an 

earlier refueling outage revealed an irregularity about one-quarter inch long near a nozzle on the vessel 

head. The flaw did not penetrate the vessel head wall and there was no evidence of leakage. Duke Energy 

has begun the repair process.

 “There was no immediate threat to the public or plant workers, but because the discovery is on 

the vessel head and was not seen in the original review, we are sending specialists from our Atlanta office 

to further evaluate the issue,” said Victor McCree, Region II Administrator. “The special inspection team 

will work to analyze and understand all the details.”

 The NRC’s resident inspectors at Harris immediately began assessing the incident and are 

continuing to monitor the plant’s activities. They are being supplemented this week by two specialized 

inspectors from the NRC’s Region II offices in Atlanta. The team will, among other things, develop a 

timeline, review Duke’s actions leading up to the discovery of the flaw, examine the previous ultrasonic 

testing records for the vessel head, evaluate the company’s repair plans and determine if there are generic 

issues that should be communicated to other nuclear plants.

 The on-site portion of the inspection is expected to take about a week and a half. A report 

documenting the results will be issued within 45 days of the completion of the inspection.

###
§ 970.402 Technological capability. ( a ) Before the Administrator may certify an application for an exploration license, he must find that the applicant has demonstrated that, upon issuance or transfer of the license, the applicant will possess, or have access to or a reasonable expectation of obtaining, the technological capability to engage in the proposed exploration.
( b ) In order for the Administrator to make this determination, the applicant must demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that the applicant will possess or have access to, at the time of issuance or transfer of the license, the technology and expertise, as needed, to carry out the exploration program set forth in his exploration plan.
```

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00356]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, 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: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience 
Integrated Review Group; Acute Neural Injury and Epilepsy Study 
Section.
    Date: February 21-22, 2019.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Dupont Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20036.
    Contact Person: Paula Elyse Schauwecker, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5201, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-
760-8207, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 25, 2019.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-00356 Filed 1-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I,Gerald J. Burnett, certify that:

1.                 Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of AvistarCommunications Corporation;

2.                 Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.                 Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

a)               Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)              Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)               Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)               Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)              Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: April 28,  2006      |
|---------------------------------|
| /s/ GERALD J. BURNETT           |   |
| Gerald J. Burnett               |
| *Chief Executive Officer*       |
| *(Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
§ 995.11 Government review and approval. ( a ) An application will be reviewed by NOAA within 90 days of receipt. If all requirements, as defined by this part, are adequately addressed, certification will be granted. If for any reason NOAA will be unable to process the application for certification within the 90-day time frame, Applicant will be notified and a revised date will be provided for a decision on the request.
( b ) ( 1 ) NOAA will determine if the request for certification is complete and that it demonstrates that Applicant has met all of the applicable requirements described in this part.
( 2 ) In the event that a request is incomplete or does not demonstrate that Applicant has met all of the applicable requirements, NOAA will consider the application unacceptable. NOAA will notify the Applicant of the deficiencies in writing. Applicant may re-submit a revised application within 90 days of receipt of NOAA's denial notice. NOAA will review applications received within the 90-day resubmission period in the time frame described in paragraph (a) of this section. After the second review, if the application is still unacceptable, Applicant will be again notified of the deficiencies in writing and the process continues as stated is this section.
#### § 785.14 Extension of time.

The parties may extend any applicable time limitation by stipulation filed with the ALJ before the time limitation expires, or the ALJ may, on the ALJ's own initiative or upon application by any party, either before or after the expiration of any applicable time limitation, extend the time, except that the requirement that a hearing be demanded within 15 calendar days, and the requirement that a final agency decision be made within 60 calendar days, may not be modified.
§ 923.44 State review on a case-by-case basis of actions affecting land and water uses subject to the management program—Technique C. ( a ) The management program must provide for any one or a combination of general techniques specified in subsection 306(d)(11) of the Act for control of land and water uses within the coastal zone. The third such control technique, at subsection 306(d)(11)(C) of the Act, is state administrative review for consistency with the management program of all development plans, projects, or land and water use regulations, including exceptions and variances thereto, proposed by any state or local authority or private developer, with power to approve or disapprove after public notice and an opportunity for hearings (control technique C).
( b ) Under case-by-case review, States have the power to review individual development plans, projects or land and water use regulations (including variances and exceptions thereto) proposed by any State or local authority or private developer which have been identified in the management program as being subject to review for consistency with the management program. This control technique requires the greatest degree of policy specificity because compliance with the program will not require any prior actions on the part of anyone affected by the program. Specificity also is needed to avoid challenges that decisions (made pursuant to the management program) are unfounded, arbitrary or capricious.
( c ) To have control technique C approved, a State must: ( 1 ) Identify the plans, projects or regulations subject to review, based on their significance in terms of impacts on coastal resources, potential for incompatibility with the State's coastal management program, and having greater than local significance;
( 2 ) Identify the State agency that will conduct this review;
( 3 ) Include the criteria by which identified plans, projects and regulations will be approved or disapproved;
( 4 ) Have the power to approve or disapprove identified plans, projects or regulations that are inconsistent with the management program, or the power to seek court review thereof; and
( 5 ) Provide public notice of reviews and the opportunity for public hearing prior to rendering a decision on each case-by-case review.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John J. Varriale, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[818 NYS2d 924]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 3, 2005, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was unable to file a valid original claim.

Claimant attended Hofstra University continuously from the fall semester 1999 through the spring semester 2004. In addition, he attended a 2003 summer session from June through July. In July and August 2003, claimant was employed in a resident safety job at the university. Claimant filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits in September 2004 claiming his employment at the university as part of his base period. The initial determination that claimant’s base period employment with the university was excluded under Labor Law § 511 (15) rendering claimant ineligible for benefits was sustained after a hearing, affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and is now appealed to this Court.

We find that the record contains substantial evidence supporting the Board’s determination that claimant’s employment at the university falls within the employment exclusion set forth in Labor Law § 511 (15) *(see Matter of Buckland [Commissioner of Labor],*253 AD2d 936, 937 [1998]; *Matter of Sukhov [Sweeney],*243 AD2d 1024, 1024 [1997]; *Matter of Mitromaras [Roberts],*122 AD2d 368, 369 [1986]; *Matter of Theurer [Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of*N.Y.—Ross], 59 AD2d 196, 198-199 [1977]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
OFFICE OF ‘THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ‘I'RXAR 

AUSTIN 

Railroad CommIsalon o? Taxao 

AllatIn, Taxes 

opinion No. O-3611b, 

Ointlaman, Ra’: Intarpratlng B.B. 351, 47th Leg. 

In our opinion No. 0-36lla, In answering your aevantaanth question, we axpresaad tha opinion that “if the 

authority erpreaaad in the psrmlt (spaoial oommodlty) ha8 

been amended elnoa Jenuew 1, 1941, the replacing oertlrlceta (epaolalized motor.oerrIar) should carry tha authority 

given in the amended permit whether the amendment Inorresad 

or decreesad the authority tharatorora oonfarrad.~ It has 

barn called to our attention that coma such amendmenta inorsassd the authority so ee to authorize operation In 

areas not theratorore served, and that soma amdndments 

authorized the transportation or oommodltlar not theretot&re quthorlzad to be hauled. 

Upon rurther aremlnetlon into the question wa 

heva oonoludad that WI wara In error aa oonoarne pasmite . 

whloh had bean emended einoa January 1, 1941, authorizing 

euoh lnoraeesd oprretlona. 

A person reoalvlng a spaoiel oommodlty permit 

einoa’ January 1, 194l, is danlad a rsplaolng eprolelIzed 

motor oarrlar oartirioeta without hr plaade end-prorar pub- 

- 110 oon7anIrnoa and nsoaselty. Thara is no real differsnor 

batWarn that parson=& one who hes.obkalnad ldantloal naw 

oparating rights alnoa- January 1,’ 1941, through araandmant 

or en old parrnit. Tha intantion ehould not ba aeorlbad to 

tha lagialatura to raqulra tha ona to dlscharga an onuroue 

burdan end not to place tha same raqulrament on tha other 

unleae the language of tha stetuta nil1 not edmlt reasona- 

:Plg or a dirrerant oonetruotlon. Via do not baliara the 

,applloebla. language of the Act neossserlly raquiraz tha 

6onst_ruot$on which we have heretorora &van. Section Se(b), 

lest oleus~, AcoordInglg, wa m0airy our enewar to your 

said aeientaenth question end say thet the eproiallzad cerrlar csrtlrioixts dhould not embody any operating rights not 

oonteinad In the: permit as’ ot January 1, 194l, end this daepita tha taot that thera may heva bean an amendment granted 

slnoa that data’lnoieeslng suoh rights. 
Rollroad Commission or Taxes, Paga 2 

We adhere to the 

opinion’ to the arreot that Ii a 

on axprasead In that 

aolel oommodltp parmlt 

her been emended rlnce JanUaryl, 1941, 80 ‘68 to deoreasa 

It.8 aut&orIty, tha repleoing oartlfloetr should emb$yh;;t;y 

the authority contained In the permit 08 emended. 

otherwise would be to grant hlm new opareting right8 wlthI out proor or pub110 convenlenoe and neceeslty, simply on 

sooount of the ract that et a prior time he had held suoh 

righta, while a naw appllO0nt ror the mm quthorlty would 

’ ba required to show public oonvrnlenoe end neoaseity. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GEN-ERAL OF TEXAS 

APPROVED AVG 1, 1941 

/I/ Grover Sellare 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

GRL;ob 

APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE BY BWB CHAIR! . ’
§ 80.1 General requirements. ( a ) Data from records of decennial census of population questionnaires pertaining to an individual will be released only in accordance with these rules.
( b ) Census information contains only the responses recorded by the Census enumerator; no changes of any of these entries have been or can be made.
( c ) Requests for information from decennial census of population records (herein “Census Information”) should be made available on Form BC-600, which is available from offices at the Census Bureau in Suitland, Maryland 20233, and Jeffersonville, Indiana 47131; all county courthouses; Social Security Administration field offices; post offices; and Immigration and Naturalization Service offices. A letter request—without Form BC-600—will be accepted only if it contains the information necessary to complete a Form BC-600. No application will be processed without payment of the required fee as set forth in 15 CFR 50.5.
( d ) The Bureau may require verification of the identity of the applicant requesting Census information and it may require the applicant to submit the following notarized statement: I, ____________________ (Printed name), do hereby certify that I am the individual to whom the requested record pertains or that I am within the class of persons authorized to act on his behalf in accordance with 15 CFR, Part 80. (Signature) (Date)____________________ In the County of State of On this ______ day of ________, 19____, ____________________ (Name of individual) who is personally known to me, did appear before me and sign the above certificate. (Signature) (Date)____________________ (S) My commission expires
( e ) Except as otherwise provided, Census information will be provided only to the individual to whom the record pertains. It will include the names of the subject and the head of the household, the relationship of the subject to the head of the household, and the subject's age and birthplace.
( f ) Similar Census information pertaining to other members of a household will be furnished only upon written authorization of the individual whose record is requested, except as provided in § 80.3.
( g ) Census information will not be furnished to another person unless the person to whom the information relates authorizes such release in the space provided on the Form BC-600.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0607-0117) [40 FR 53232, Nov. 17, 1975, as amended at 48 FR 56744, Dec. 23, 1983; 68 FR 42586, July 18, 2003]
#### Sponge Rubber Products Company, Respondent, v. Purofied Down Products Corporation, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
§ 971.1004 Remission or mitigation of forfeitures. ( a ) Authorized enforcement officers are empowered by section 304 of the Act to seize any vessel (together with its gear, furniture, appurtenances, stores, and cargo) which reasonably appears to have been used in violation of the Act, if necessary to prevent evasion of the enforcement of this Act, or of any regulation, order or license or permit issued pursuant to the Act. Enforcement agents may also seize illegally recovered or processed hard mineral resources, as well as other evidence related to a violation. Section 306 of the Act provides for the judicial forfeiture of vessels and hard mineral resources.
( b ) Subpart F of 15 CFR part 904 governs procedures regarding seized property that is subject to forfeiture or has been forfeited under the Act, including the remission or mitigation of forfeitures.
( c ) Unless otherwise directed in a notice concerning the seized property, a petition for relief from forfeiture under the Act and pursuant to 15 CFR 904.506(b) shall be addressed to the Administrator and filed with the Ocean Minerals and Energy Division at the address specified in § 971.200(b).
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Robert Drake, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 73-205;

Third District

August 6, 1974.

James Geis, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.

Martin Rudman, State’s Attorney, of Joliet, for the People.

PER CURIAM.