alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Lillian Wood, Respondent, v. John C. Monroe, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from an award in a heart case. The claimant, while working as a secretary on June 6, 1958, pulled open the top drawer of a filing cabinet and in so doing it tipped over, striking her on the chest. There was testimony that the drawer itself was heavy and that the filing cabinet weighed approximately two hundred pounds. It was necessary for her to heave and push the drawer and cabinet to get it back in place. She testified that at the time of the incident she immediately felt a slight pain. One of her coemployees testified to the happening of the accident and that the claimant complained of pain and that her face was *“*red as a lobster ”. The claimant testified that thereafter during the afternoon and evening on several occasions she felt additional pain and upon her arrival home in the evening she suffered severe and terrific pain. She consulted a doctor on June 9 who, after making an examination, ordered her to the hospital where she remained for approximately eight weeks. The doctor found that she was suffering from myocardial infarction due to coronary insufficiency. This doctor stated that he did not know whether the injury was of sufficient force to result in the cardiac condition but said that injuries to the chest wall and sudden exertions have precipitated myocardial injury and would not deny such possibility. In December the claimant was attended by a Dr. Strieker who stated as follows: *“*Q. Doctor, did you feel that the condition which you found was the result of the history which we described to you, of exertion, and so forth? A. I did feel this was a competent cause of her injury. Q. You thought that was related? A. Yes this is the reason why I filed this form.” She further stated that she felt the episode in connection with the filing cabinet was the cause of the coronary insufficiency. Another doctor testified that in his opinion he did not think the blow to the chest was sufficient to cause ,a coronary condition and that the coronary did not occur until later in the day and after she had finished her employment and was in no way associated with the contusions to the chest. The board found that the pushing of the drawer with the immediate pain was sufficient strain and exertion to have caused the coronary condition and we think the evidence justifies such findings. There was testimony that the drawer itself weighed approximately 70 or 80 pounds, that it fell directly on the chest of the claimant, that it required considerable effort and exertion on her part to push it back and that it was an unusual effort on her part. The medical testimony, while disputed, is sufficient to support such a finding. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
§ 578.11 Unified Funding Agency. ( a ) *Becoming a Unified Funding Agency.* To become designated as the Unified Funding Agency (UFA) for a Continuum, a collaborative applicant must be selected by the Continuum to apply to HUD to be designated as the UFA for the Continuum.
( b ) *Criteria for designating a UFA.* HUD will consider these criteria when deciding whether to designate a collaborative applicant a UFA: ( 1 ) The Continuum of Care it represents meets the requirements in § 578.7;
( 2 ) The collaborative applicant has financial management systems that meet the standards set forth in 2 CFR 200.302;
( 3 ) The collaborative applicant demonstrates the ability to monitor subrecipients; and
( 4 ) Such other criteria as HUD may establish by NOFA.
( c ) *Requirements.* HUD-designated UFAs shall: ( 1 ) Apply to HUD for funding for all of the projects within the geographic area and enter into a grant agreement with HUD for the entire geographic area.
( 2 ) Enter into legally binding agreements with subrecipients, and receive and distribute funds to subrecipients for all projects within the geographic area.
( 3 ) Require subrecipients to establish fiscal control and accounting procedures as necessary to assure the proper disbursal of and accounting for federal funds in accordance with the requirements of 2 CFR part 200, subpart D.
( 4 ) Obtain approval of any proposed grant agreement amendments by the Continuum of Care before submitting a request for an amendment to HUD.
[77 FR 45442, July 31, 2012, as amended at 80 FR 75939, Dec. 7, 2015]
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3339 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2005 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2061 South Park Avenue in Buffalo, New 

York, as the ‘‘James T. Molloy Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 3339 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 2061 South Park Avenue in Buffalo, New York, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘James T. Molloy 

5 Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘James T. Molloy Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 26, 2005. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                  ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Home City Financial Corporation, (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-QSB  for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
we,  Douglas  L.  Ulery,  President  and Chief Executive Officer, and Charles A.
Mihal,  Treasurer  and  Chief  Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350,  as  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002,  that:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

     (2)     The  information  contained  in  the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/  Douglas  L.  Ulery                         /s/  Charles  A.  Mihal
------------------------------------            -------------------------------
Douglas  L.  Ulery                              Charles  A.  Mihal
President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer       Treasurer  and  Chief
                                                Financial  Officer

November  13,  2002                             November  13,  2002
-------------------------------------           -------------------------------
Date:                                           Date:
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  March 16, 2007
    /s/ Matthew J. AssiffMatthew J. AssiffSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANDRAE D.D. COLE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 143 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of August, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
§ 891.320 Site and neighborhood standards. In addition to the requirements in § 891.125 and § 891.680, if applicable, the following site and neighborhood requirements apply to the Section 811 Program: ( a ) Travel time and cost via public transportation or private automobile, from the neighborhood to places of employment providing a range of jobs for very low-income workers (or low-income workers, as applicable), must not be excessive.
( b ) Projects should be located in neighborhoods where other family housing is located. Projects should not be located adjacent to the following facilities, or in areas where such facilities are concentrated: schools or day-care centers for persons with disabilities, workshops, medical facilities, or other housing primarily serving persons with disabilities. Not more than one group home may be located on any one site and no such home may be located on a site contiguous to another site containing such a home.
### §§1481 to 1485. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–213, §16(ff)–(jj), Dec. 8, 1983, 97 Stat. 1463

Section 1481, act June 16, 1880, ch. 235, 21 Stat. 277, related to care and custody of convicts.

Section 1482, R.S. §1892, placed any penitentiary erected or to be erected under care and control of marshal of the United States for Territory or District in which situated.

Section 1483, R.S. §1893, related to promulgation of rules and regulations by Attorney General of the United States for government of such penitentiaries, and compensation of marshals and their deputies.

Section 1484, R.S. §1894, related to charging compensation and subsistence and employment expenses of offenders sentenced to imprisonment in such penitentiaries.

Section 1485, R.S. §1895, related to imprisonment at cost of Territory in such penitentiaries of persons convicted for violation of laws of Territory.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to Results(Re)inventing Government-Industry R and D CollaborationThis paper describes the lessons learned in developing and operating a large-scale strategic alliance whose organization and coordination is U.S. Government-led using new means for R&D collaboration. Consortia in the United States counter a century of 1884 Sherman Anti-Trust Law-based governmental and legal policy and a longstanding business tradition of unfettered competition. Success in public-private collaboration in America requires compelling vision and motivation by both partners to reinvent our ways of doing business. The foundations for reinventing government and alliance building were laid in 1994 with Vice President Al Gore's mandates for Federal Lab Reviews and other examinations of the roles and missions for the nation's more than 700 government labs. In addition, the 1984 National Cooperative Research Act (NCRA) set in motion the abilities for U.S. companies to collaborate in pre-competitive technology development. The budget realities of the 1990's for NASA and other government agencies demand that government discover the means to accomplish its mission by leveraging resources through streamlining as well as alliances. Federal R&D investments can be significantly leveraged for greater national benefit through strategic alliances with industry and university partners. This paper presents early results from one of NASA's first large-scale public/private joint R&D ventures.Document ID19960047135Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHolmes, Bruce J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1996Subject CategoryAdministration And ManagementReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-110271NAS 1.15:110271Accession Number96N32898Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 538-07-19-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19960047135.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 18.7 [Reserved]
1

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

  

----
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02334**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 02334\02334_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 02334\02334_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 02334\02334_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 02334\02334_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02334\02334_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02334\02334_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02334\02334_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02334\02334_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02334\02334_PartF.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02334\02334_PartG.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02334\02334_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02334\0234_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 02334\Certification Statement_02334.pdf Plant certification statement 

### x 02334\Supporting Documentation\02334_Big Cajun 2 (6055) Block Diag BD-1.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02334\Supporting Documentation\02334_Big Cajun 2 (6055) Block Diag BD-2.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02334\Supporting Documentation\02334_Big Cajun 2 (6055) Block Diag BD-3.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02334\Supporting Documentation\02334_Big Cajun 2 (6055) Block Diag BD-4.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02334\Supporting Documentation\02334_Big Cajun 2 (6055) Ground Water Well Locations (GM-1).PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02334\Supporting Documentation\02334_Big Cajun 2 (6055) Water Balance.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 02334\Supporting Documentation\Big Cajun 2 (6055) Site Aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

.
#### § 1204.1 What is the purpose of this part?

This part explains how you as a lessee or designee of a Federal onshore or Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas lease may obtain prepayment or accounting and auditing relief for production from certain marginal properties. This part does not apply to production from Indian leases, even if the Indian lease is within an agreement that qualifies as a marginal property.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: RELINQUISHMENT OF J.D., A 

MINOR

PETITION OF: F.D., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 648 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
### §1615. Judicial divisions

The Virgin Islands consists of two judicial divisions; the Division of Saint Croix, comprising the island of Saint Croix and adjacent islands and cays, and the Division of Saint Thomas and Saint John, comprising the islands of Saint Thomas and Saint John and adjacent islands and cays.

(July 22, 1954, ch. 558, §25, 68 Stat. 507; Pub. L. 95–598, title III, §336(b), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2680; Pub. L. 98–454, title VII, §707, title X, §1001, Oct. 5, 1984, 98 Stat. 1741, 1745; Pub. L. 101–219, title II, §203, Dec. 12, 1989, 103 Stat. 1874.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1989—Pub. L. 101–219 struck out provision that court for the Division of Saint Croix be held in Christiansted and for the Division of Saint Thomas and Saint John at Charlotte Amalie.

1984—Pub. L. 98–454 amended section generally, inserting provisions setting forth places for the holding of court of each judicial division and striking out provisions relating to the applicability of procedural rules and prosecutions by information and indictment, which are now covered under section 1614 of this title, and repealed section 336 of Pub. L. 95–598 which had amended this section.

1978—Pub. L. 95–598 substituted "section 2075 of title 28 in cases under title 11" for "section 53 of title 11 in bankruptcy cases".

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

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–454 effective on ninetieth day following Oct. 5, 1984, see section 1005 of Pub. L. 98–454, set out as a note under section 1424 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Pub. L. 95–598, title IV, §402(e), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2682, which provided a prospective effective date for the amendment of this section by section 336(b) of Pub. L. 95–598, was repealed by Pub. L. 98–454, title X, §1001, Oct. 5, 1984, 98 Stat. 1745.
### §716. Printing of documents not provided for by law

Either House may order the printing of a document not already provided for by law, when accompanied by an estimate from the Director of the Government Publishing Office as to the probable cost. An executive department, bureau, board, or independent office of the Government submitting reports or documents in response to inquiries from Congress shall include an estimate of the probable cost of printing to the usual number. This section does not apply to reports or documents not exceeding fifty pages.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1250; Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(c)(1), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §140 (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, §2, 28 Stat. 601; Mar. 1, 1907, ch. 2284, §1, 34 Stat. 1013).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–235 substituted "Director of the Government Publishing Office" for "Public Printer".
#### In the Matter of Dennis P. Lubohuk, Petitioner, v. County Court, Queens County, Respondent.

Motion by petitioner for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
**Meeting Notes**
**— norflurazon**  **fo cus meeting** 

**4/11 /2013**  **-- W**  **ith Syngenta**  **Topics Discussed:** 

 **Registration review schedule:** reg review docket opened Sept 2012 ; FWP published March 2013 ; DCI expected to be issued December 2013

 Syngenta provided label use and use rate clarifications and proposed to make potential label changes early in the process (i.e., removing farmstead uses, clarifying DFUs, and improved application directions). There is a concern that if Syngenta revises their labels now, they may have to revise the labels again when registration review mitigation goes into effects several years from now. But since norflurazon is unique in that there is only one registrant and a few registered products, the best time for revising the labels may be about 6
- 12 months before the publication of the Preliminary Risk Assessment.

 Syngenta intends to submi t additional sales data to EPA.

 Syngenta proposed potential approaches for geospatial ana lysis; EPA stressed that if Syngenta could tease out the geography of norflurazon use on a crop /use basis, then that would be helpful for the risk assessment.

 Syngenta proposed potential approaches for exposure refinements (including a probabilistic static pond modeling approach, use of PRZM runoff flux when modeling terrestrial plant exposure, and the need to characterize flow when modeling flo wing water bodies); EPA stated that it was in the process of developing a new model approach for estimating terrestrial plant exposure. EPA stressed that the shift to the new model would not take place right away.

 Syngenta proposed potential tools /approaches for risk characterization ( e.g., use of species sensitivity distributions and incorpor ation of probabilistic statistical techniques); EPA agreed that these approaches may be useful and stated that while the tools/approaches that Syngenta discussed are the direction of risk characterization, the Agency is not yet using them.

 Syngenta asked if EPA’s science divisions were willing to look at proposed label changes and evaluate its effects on risk picture before such changes are submi tted to RD. EPA said it was willing to look at proposed label changes for norflurazon since norflurazon h as only one technical registrant and a couple labels, but its ability to do so may be limited by time constraints and workload. EPA stated that the process for implementing label changes as part of registration review was still being worked out.
## V E N D O R 

## P R O F I L E

Note: Information is from vendor, however specifications may have
changed. Contact vendor for updates. Water Treatment Catalog and Decision Tool



### G e o P u r e H y d r o t e c h n o l o g i e s
Contact Information

Company Name: GeoPure Hydrotechnologies

Profile: GeoPure is a commercial stage, full service provider to

contaminated water producers with focus on water recycling and purification rather than disposal. The company utilizes RO technology that was developed by the Global Petroleum Research Institute (GPRI) and a patent pending pre

- treatment system. Their RO system has been field tested in the Barnett Shale and in certain regions of Wyoming.

Address: 777 Main Street, Suite 600, Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Phone: 817

- 887

- 8452

Website: www.geopurewt.com


### Treatment Technology

Category: Membrane

Subcategory: Reverse Osmosis and Micro

- Filtration

Technology Name:

Surface Footprint

Process Description: The GeoPure treatment process is a combination of pre

treatment, microfiltration, and RO. These three treatment steps are operated in series to treat produced water compositions and generate clean water stream that can then be discharged or reused for fracing. This t echnology was specifically developed for the desalination of oil and gas produced waters. Depending on the quality of the feed water, the process implements various pretreatment processes to remove dispersed oil, suspended solids, or dissolved hydrocarbon s. The pretreated water is then further purified with polymeric microfiltration and RO. To increase RO efficiency, the microfiltration step filters out suspended solids prior to final RO treatment.

Feedwater TDS/ % Water Recovery Approximately 15, 000 mg/L , approximately 50% water recovery

% Waste Stream:

Feed Capacity: 5,000 bpd

Costs: $0.94 Bbl ( based on costs reported for Barnett Shale study)
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 64 FR 26640, May 14, 1999, and at 89 FR 38293, May 7, 2024.

#### § 982.407 Enforcement of HQS.

Part 982 does not create any right of the family, or any party other than HUD or the PHA, to require enforcement of the HQS requirements by HUD or the PHA, or to assert any claim against HUD or the PHA, for damages, injunction or other relief, for alleged failure to enforce the HQS.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2577-0169)

[60 FR 34695, July 3, 1995, as amended at 60 FR 45661, Sept. 1, 1995; 80 FR 8246, Feb. 17, 2015. Redesignated at 81 FR 12375, Mar. 8, 2016]