alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §10823. Payments under allotments

For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall make payments to each eligible system from its allotment under this subchapter. Any amount paid to an eligible system for a fiscal year and remaining unobligated at the end of such year shall remain available to such system for the next fiscal year for the purposes for which it was made.

(Pub. L. 99–319, title I, §113, May 23, 1986, 100 Stat. 484.)
§ 303.5 Abbreviations, ditto marks, and asterisks prohibited. ( a ) In disclosing required information, words or terms shall not be designated by ditto marks or appear in footnotes referred to by asterisks or other symbols in required information, and shall not be abbreviated except as permitted in § 303.33(e) of this part.
( b ) Where the generic name of a textile fiber is required to appear in immediate conjunction with a fiber trademark in advertising, labeling, or invoicing, a disclosure of the generic name by means of a footnote, to which reference is made by use of an asterisk or other symbol placed next to the fiber trademark, shall not be sufficient in itself to constitute compliance with the Act and regulations.
[24 FR 4480, June 2, 1959, as amended at 65 FR 75156, Dec. 1, 2000]
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00086- CR
Sergio Delgado Dom ingu ez, A ppellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 299 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 05- 2059 35- A, H ONO RAB LE K AREN SAGE, JUDGE P RESIDING
O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N P ER CURIAM

Appellant’s bri ef wa s due in this Court on J une 16, 2014. On J uly 1, we notified appellant’ s counsel that appellant’ s brief was overdue and that if we did not rec eive a satisfac tory response from counsel on or befor e J uly 11, 2014, a hear in g b ef o re t h e district court pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b) would be order ed. To date, appellant’ s brief has not been filed, nor have we
rec eived a

response from counse l. We the ref ore abate the cause and re mand it to the district court to hold a hear ing in
acc ordanc e with rule 38.8 of the rules of appellate proce dure. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)( 2), (3). The district court shall hold a hear ing immediately to deter mine whether appellant still wishes to prosec ute his appea l, whether appellant is indige nt, and whether counsel has abandone d the appea l. See id
. I f appellant desires to ap p ea l an d is indige nt, the district court should make appropr iate order s to ensure that appellant is adequately repr esente d on appea l. See id
. Following the hear ing,the district court should order the appropr iate supplementary cler k’s and repor

ter’s rec ords to be prepa red a nd forwa rded to this Court no later than Septe mber 29, 2014. See id
.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield Abated a nd Remanded Filed: Aug ust 28, 2014 Do Not Publish

2
#### David Cook, plaintiff in error, v. Charles Powell, defendant in error.

Practice: setting aside verdict. A verdict will not be set aside on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence, unless-it is clearly so. A court will always hesitate to set aside a verdict where doubts of the propriety of doing so arise out of a conflict in oral evidence.

Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Sava&e, J

*A. F.*Ferguson, for plaintiff in error.

*O. F. Manderson,*for defendant in error.

Maxwell, *J.*

The errors assigned are:

*First.*That the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

*Second.*That the verdict is against the law of the land.

*Third.*That there is, and was, no evidence to sustain the verdict.

*Fourth.*That the verdict was for the defendant when it should have been for the plaintiff.

No exceptions were taken on the trial of the cause. The only question therefore presented to this court is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The rule is well settled that the verdict of a jury will not be set aside on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence, unless it is clearly so. A court will always hesitate to set aside a verdict where doubts of the propriety of doing so arise out of a conflict in oral evidence. *The A. & N. R. R. Co. v.*Washburn, 5 Neb., *285126. *Seymour v. Street,*Id., 85. *Blackburn v. Ostrander,*Id., 219. *Storms v. Eaton,*Id., 464.

As there is a conflict in the testimony in this case, and the questions of fact appear to have been fairly submitted to the jury, the judgment of the district court must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
PRD Appendix A: Food/Feed & Non-Food/Non-Feed Uses Considered in Registration Review Work Planning

Chemical: Nitrapyrin (069203)

Note: This is an aggregate report of registered uses for this chemical. Label data for chemicals with more than one pesticide product are presented in aggregate form (i.e. each line of data may be a combination of data from one or more pesticide).

Fo

o

d (F) /

N

on-fo

o

d

Use Site Formulation Desc

A. I. Max App 

Rate/App

Max # Apps / 

CC

A. I. Max 

App 

Rate/CC

Max # 

Apps 

/ Year

A. I. Max App 

Rate/Year

Minimum 

Retreatment 

Interval

Minimum 

Reentry

Interval PGI / PHI / PSI Allow Geo Restrictions

DisAllow Geo 

Restrictions Limitations

F CORN (UNSPECIFIED) EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE .9929 lb / a NS NS NS .9929lb / a NS 24 hr NS Iowa | No Restrictions C40 || C46 || CAU || CAY(2) || CAZ(4) || CDC || CPE || CRO || CWH || CWL

Current As Of Date : 01-APR-2011

F CORN (UNSPECIFIED) EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE .9929 lb / a NS NS NS .9929lb / a NS 24 hr NS Iowa | No Restrictions C40 || C46 || CAU || CAY(2) || CAZ(4) || CDC || CPE || CRO || CWH || CWL

F CORN (UNSPECIFIED) MICROENCAPSULATED .9355 lb / a NS NS NS .9355lb / a NS 24 hr NS No Restrictions No Restrictions C46 || CAG || CAU || CDC || CPE || CRO || CSR || CWG || CWH || CWL

F SORGHUM (UNSPECIFIED) EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE .9078 lb / a NS NS NS .9078lb / a NS 24 hr NS No Restrictions No Restrictions C46 || CAU || CAY(2) || CAZ(4) || CDC || CPE || CRO || CWH || CWL

F WHEAT EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE .9078 lb / a NS NS NS .9078lb / a NS 24 hr NS No Restrictions No Restrictions C46 || CAU || CAY(2) || CAZ(4) || CDC || CPE || CRO || CWH || CWL

C (AZ) Incorporate to a maximum depth of___inches.

C (AG) Do not apply where runoff is likely to occur.

C (AU) Do not apply directly to water, or to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas below 

C (AY) Incorporate to a minimum depth of___inches.

Limitation Code Limitation Description

C (40) Do not apply by aircraft.

C (46) Do not apply through any type of irrigation system.

C (WL) Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal.

C (SR) Surface Water Restriction.

C (WG) Drift and runoff may be hazardous to aquatic organisms in neighboring areas.

C (WH)

C (AZ) Incorporate to a maximum depth of___inches.

Do not contaminate water by cleaning of equipment or disposal of equipment wash waters.

C (DC) Do not apply when drift is likely to occur.

C (PE) PPE (Protective Personal Equipment) language is found on the label. Please see issues report to 

C (RO) Please refer to the label for rotational crop restrictions.

NS = Not Specified

Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KELVIN AVILA, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Appellee. §

§ § No. 289, 2021 § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 1910001773 (N) § § § Submitted: February 9, 2022 Decided: March 31, 2022

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR , Justices.

ORDER After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: (1) On February 11, 2021, the appellant, Kelvin Avila, pleaded guilty to first-degree assault. In exchange for the guilty plea, the State dismissed a charge of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony. The State also agreed to cap the amount of prison time it recommended at sentencing at five years. On August 20, 2021, the Superior Court sentenced Avila to ten years of imprisonment, suspended after four years for one year of Level III probation. This is Avila’s direct appeal.2

(2) On appeal, Avila’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Avila’s counsel asserts that, based upon a conscientious review of the record and the law, the appeal is wholly without merit. In his statement filed under Rule 26(c), counsel indicates that he informed Avila of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Counsel also informed Avila of his right to submit points he wanted this Court to consider on appeal. Avila has not submitted any points for the Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and argues that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed. (3) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims. 1 This

Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary presentation.” 2 (4) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that the appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We

also are satisfied that counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and

1 Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin , 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 2 Penson , 488 U.S. at 82.3 the law and properly determined that Avila could not raise a meritorious claim on appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice
### §13454. Advanced buildings for 2005

#### (a) Program direction

The Secretary shall initiate a 5-year program, in accordance with sections 13541 and 13542 of this title, to increase building energy efficiency, while maintaining affordability, by the year 2005. Such program shall include activities on—

(1) building design, design methods, and construction techniques;

(2) building materials, including recycled materials, and components;

(3) on-site energy supply conversion systems such as photovoltaics;

(4) automated energy management systems;

(5) methods of evaluating performance; and

(6) insulation products manufactured with nonozone depleting materials.

#### (b) Proposals

#### (1) Solicitation

Within 1 year after October 24, 1992, the Secretary shall solicit proposals for conducting activities under this section.

#### (2) Contents of proposals

Proposals submitted under this subsection shall include and be judged upon—

(A) evidence of knowledge of current building practices in the United States and in other countries;

(B) an explanation of how the proposal will encourage the commercialization of the technologies resulting from activities in subsection (a);

(C) evidence of consideration of collaboration with Department of Energy national laboratories;

(D) evidence of collaboration with relevant industry or other groups or organizations; and

(E) a demonstration of the ability of the proposers to undertake and complete the project proposed.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title XXI, §2104, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3069.)
#### A & C Construction, Inc. of New York, Appellant, and The Mountbatten Surety Company, Inc., Intervenor-Plaintiff, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 802]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered August 31, 2005, which, in an action for breach of a construction contract, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff contractor’s motion “for an Order pursuant to CPLR 3018 precluding [defendant Housing Authority] from asserting any affirmative defenses in this action, including the defense of lack of notice of claim,” unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The relief, while denominated as preclusion, is actually for a *763default judgment, which relief is unavailable to plaintiff since it was not sought within one year after the alleged failure to serve an answer or amended answer (CPLR 3215 [c]). In any event, assuming preclusion is available, and assuming further that failure to serve a notice of claim is an affirmative defense that defendant was obligated to plead *(but see Maxwell v City of New York,*29 AD3d 540, 541 [2006]), the motion was properly denied on the ground that no issues of fact are raised as to defendant’s service of answers to both the original and amended complaints. In response to defendant’s evidence of such service, which included its attorney’s affirmation in opposition unequivocally attesting to service and attaching corroborating copies of the same attorney’s contemporaneous affirmations of service and verifications of the answer and amended answer, plaintiff submitted the affirmation of its former attorney that “to the best of [his] knowledge and recollection and review of the file, [appellant] did not serve ... an answer to the complaints.” Such claim of nonreceipt is too equivocal to warrant a hearing *(see Sons of Israel of Bronx v City of New York,*292 AD2d 222 [2002]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
### §12376. Definitions

For purposes of this subchapter—

(1) the term "Conference" means the 1993 White House Conference on Children, Youth, and Families; and

(2) the terms "child", "youth", and "young individual" means 1 an individual who is less than 21 years of age.

(Pub. L. 101–501, title IX, §987, Nov. 3, 1990, 104 Stat. 1283.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1990, see section 1001(a) of Pub. L. 101–501, set out as an Effective Date of 1990 Amendment note under section 8621 of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be "mean".
#### § 1500.266 Notice of sampling.

When a sample of a hazardous substance offered for import has been requested by the director of the area office, the collector of customs having jurisdiction over the hazardous substance shall give to the owner or consignee prompt notice of delivery of, or intention to deliver, such sample. Upon receipt of the notice, the owner or consignee shall hold such hazardous substance and not distribute it until further notice from the area office director or the collector of customs of the results of examination of the sample.
§ 303.13 Sale of remnants and products made of remnants. ( a ) In disclosing the required fiber content information as to remnants of fabric which are for practical purposes of unknown or undeterminable fiber content: ( 1 ) The fiber content disclosure of such remnants of fabrics may be designated in the required information as “remnants of undetermined fiber content.”
( 2 ) Where such remnants of fabrics are displayed for sale at retail, a conspicuous sign may, in lieu of individual labeling, be used in immediate conjunction with such display, stating with respect to required fiber content disclosure that the goods are “remnants of undetermined fiber content.”
( 3 ) Where textile fiber products are made of such remnants, the required fiber content information of the products may be disclosed as “made of remnants of undetermined fiber content.” If any representations as to fiber content are made with respect to such remnants, the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply.
( b ) Where remnants of fabrics are marketed or handled in bales, bundles, or packages and are all of the same fiber content or are designated in the manner permitted by paragraph (a) of this section, the individual remnants need not be labeled if the bales, bundles, or packages containing such remnants are labeled with the required information including fiber content percentages or the designation permitted by paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Where remnants of fabrics of the same fiber content are displayed for sale at retail, a conspicuous sign may, in lieu of individual labeling, be used in immediate conjunction with such display, stating the fiber content information with respect to such remnants; as for example: “remnants, 100 percent cotton,” “remnants, 50 percent rayon, 50 percent acetate,” etc.
No: III-13-033 August 8, 2013

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Schedules Public Meeting Aug. 14 to Discuss 

Performance of Byron Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting on Aug. 14 to discuss the 

agency’s annual assessment of safety performance for the Byron nuclear power plant. The two-unit plant 

is operated by Exelon Generation Co., and is located in Byron, Ill., approximately 17 miles southwest of 

Rockford.

The meeting is scheduled for 6-7 p.m. at the Byron Station Training Building, 4450 N. German 

Church Rd., in Byron. Attendees will be able to observe the meeting. After the business portion of the 

meeting they will have the opportunity to talk with NRC staff members about the plant’s 2012 

performance and the agency’s oversight of the facility. 

The NRC review concluded that the Byron facility operated safely in 2012. All performance 

indicators and inspection findings for the facility were green or of very low risk and would not cause the 

NRC to increase its oversight. As a result, Byron will continue to receive the NRC’s normal level of 

oversight during 2013.

Inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant, inspection 

specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and specialists from the agency’s headquarters in 

Rockville, Md. Among the areas of performance to be inspected this year by NRC inspectors are 

activities associated with underground piping, radiological safety, equipment designs, and emergency 

preparedness.

The annual assessment letter sent from the NRC Region III office to Exelon addresses the 

performance of the plant during 2012 and is available on the NRC website.

The most current performance information for Byron Unit 1 and Unit 2 is available on the NRC 

website.
#### § 919.985 Person.

*Person* means any individual, corporation, partnership, association, unit of government, or legal entity, however organized.
#### Al’s 334 9th Ave. Corp., Respondent, *v.*William H. Herbener, Appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

The action seeks recovery of damages for breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment. The plaintiff tenant was the lessee of a store in premises owned by the defendant. On April 27, 1945, when the lease had about six months to run, the building was declared unsafe by the municipal authorities due to weaknesses in the walls resulting from demolition work conducted by the owner of the adjoining structure.

The issue that was submitted to the jury in this case was whether the defendant could have reasonably repaired the building or whether its razing was necessary.

*905Assuming that this issue was for the jury, we find that the trial court improperly submitted to the jury three items of damage for (1) loss sustained by the tenant on the sale of his store fixtures after removal from the premises, (2) legal fees for the services of the tenant’s attorney, and (3) a claim for severance pay to the tenant’s employees. None of these claims appears to represent damages flowing from the breach of the covenant, if such breach actually occurred. In view of the submission of these entirely erroneous items of damage constituting a large part of the plaintiff’s claim (see *Snow*v. *Pulitzer,*142 N. Y. 263), we deem that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Although the defendant took no exception to the charge with respect to the applicability of section 78 of the Multiple Dwelling Law to the plaintiff’s claim and, therefore, cannot urge such charge to be error, we deem it proper, as a new trial is ordered, to point out that the provisions of the Multiple Dwelling Law would seem inapplicable. The liability of the defendant, if it exists, would not be due to any failure to keep the building in repair, but to his conduct in unnecessarily demolishing the structure rather than repairing it. Furthermore, the statute would not seem to apply to a claim involving the loss of use of business premises.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Issue Date: 01/13/16 1 16-002 

 NRC INSPECTION MANUAL DIRS 

Change Notice 16-002

 DELETED: TRANSMITTED: 

 Number Date Number Date 

1. 1245 12/29/11 1245 01/13/16 

2. 1245 App A 12/19/12 1245 App A 01/13/16 

3. 1245 App B 12/29/11 1245 App B 01/13/16 

4. 1245 App C1 12/19/12 1245 App C1 01/13/16 

5. 1248 App G 04/19/13 1248 App G 01/13/16 

TRAINING: No 

REMARKS: IMC 1245, “Qualification Program for New and Operating Reactor Programs,” 

has been revised to incorporate the qualification of construction inspectors (IMC 

1252), update inspector classifications and IMC format, clarify that an examiner 

must complete an oral board when completing inspector qualification, and specify 

the recording of completed qualifications in iLearn. 

 IMC 1245 Appendix A, “Basic-Level Training and Qualification Journal,” has been 

revised to incorporate the qualification of construction inspectors (IMC 1252), 

clarifies required training courses, and replaces Task 1 with on-line training in 

ISA-21. The revision also updates the IMC format, references (including deleting 

IMC 0300 from ISA-9 and IMC 0320 from ISA-26), and safety culture training to 

conform to the safety culture common language initiative. 

 IMC 1245 Appendix B, “General Proficiency-Level Training and Qualification 

Journal,” has been revised to incorporate the qualification of construction 

inspectors (IMC 1252), and update references, required courses, IMC format and 

safety culture training. 

 IMC 1245 Appendix C1, “Reactor Operations Inspector Technical Proficiency 

Training and Qualification Journal,” has been revised to update format and 

references, and remove writing guidance in ISA-7 (SDP), including two scenarios 

that are out of date. This revision also closes a feedback form by adding training 

(on 10 CFR 50.72, 50.73 and NUREG-1022) to the initial (R-624 series) and 

refresher (R-704 series) simulator courses. 
Issue Date: 01/13/16 2 16-002 

 IMC 1248 Appendix G, “Training Requirements and Qualification Journal for 

Decommissioning Project Managers and Technical Reviewers,” has been revised 

to capture decommissioning project management and technical reviewer 

activities. 

DISTRIBUTION: 

 Standard 

 Official Use Only (OUO)-Security Related Information. 

 Please contact: _______________ Phone: ________ 

END
#### § 1512.3 Requirements in general.

Any bicycle subject to the regulations in this part shall meet the requirements of this part in the condition to which it is offered for sale to consumers; any bicycle offered for sale to consumers in disassembled or partially assembled condition shall meet these requirements after assembly according to the manufacturer's instructions. For the purpose of compliance with this part, where the metric and English units are not equal due to the conversion process the less stringent requirement will prevail.