alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
/03B 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY · WORKSHOP ON ST AND ARDS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20585 

(Rm. lE-245) 

December 14 - 15, 1998 

Workshop Purpose: The Department is interested in receiving comments and data to 

improve its preliminary analysis. In particular, the Department is 

interested in seeking responses to the questions and/or concerns that 

were addressed in the Supplemental ANOPR. The Department also 

seeks comments on the methodologies and analyses to be conducted 

for the NOPR. 

Workshop Outcomes: To receive comments on the Supplemental ANOPR and receive 

comments on analyses to be conducted for the NOPR. 

Proposed Agenda 

December 14 

. 1 :00 - 4:00 GRIM Training Session 

December 15 

9:00 - 9:15 Introduction and Review Agenda 

· 9: 15 - 9:30 Opening remarks and overview of the clothes washer rulemaking schedule 

Break (as appropriate) 

9:30 - 11 :30 · Comments and questions pertaining to the Supplemental ANOPR. Suggested 

topics include the following: 

• Proposed product classes for products. 

• Information on national level historical, current, and projections of water and 

sewer rates. 

• Information relating to the determination of price and operating cost 

elasticities. 

• Comments on the proposed DOE approach for determining shipments. 
"'· 

11:30 - 12:00 

12:00 - 1:00 

1:00 - 4:00 

1:00 - 1:30 

1:30 - 2:00 

2:00- 2:30 

2:30- 2:45 

2:45 - 3:30 

3:30-4:00 

4:00-4:30 

-continuedU.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

WORKSHOP ON STANDARDS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS 

... Comments on the alternative standard scenarios: 

• The following are examples of possible alternative standards scenarios for 

consideration by the Department: 

• A moderate standard at an early effective date. For example, a level at a 

25 percent improvement, effective three years after the publication of the 

Final Rule. 

• A stringent standard, at a later effective date. For example, a level at 

45 percent improvement effective five years after the publication of the 

Final Rule. 

• A two phase approach. For example, a level at 20 percent effective 

three years after the publication of the Final Rule (projected effective date 

- October, 2002) and a level at 40 percent effective eight years after 

publication of the Final Rule. 

... Other comments ( e.g., savings from detergent, additional information on the 

cost of units at the 40% and 45%, retail markup, tub capacity, quality of data, 

accounting for maintenance, repair and warranty costs in life-cycle-costs, 

"life" of appliance used in life-cycle-cost calculation and the use of the 

AE099 forecast in the analysis) 

Results of Reverse Engineering: Phase II 

Lunch (On Your Own) 

Presentation of NOPR analyses 

"' Marginal .energy and water rates 

... National Energy Savings - approaches to determine shipment and elasticity 

"' Consumer Survey - update 

Break 

"' Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

"' Indirect Employment 

Environmental Assessment 

Utility Impact Analysis · 

Summary Discussion and Adjournment 

·-·• - ~ --,-r-..,~ .. ,.-:~-.~.-- -- _,,. .,.,.---· - . --·-- ... •
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9600 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.9600

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 119 Main Street in Plains, Georgia, as the ``Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter 
                             Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JIMMY AND ROSALYNN CARTER POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 119 Main Street in Plains, Georgia, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Jimmy and 
Rosalynn Carter Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### § 174.17 NEPA.

At installations subject to this part, NEPA analysis shall comply with the promulgated NEPA regulations of the Military Department exercising real property accountability for the installation, including any requirements relating to responsibility for funding the analysis. See 32 CFR parts 651 (for the Army), 775 (for the Navy), and 989 (for the Air Force). Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as releasing a Military Department from complying with its own NEPA regulation.
# C_2010037EN.01003102.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2009 — Solvay v Commission

(Case T-58/01) (1)

1

(Competition - Restrictive practices - Market in soda ash in the Community - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Agreement guaranteeing to an undertaking a minimum tonnage of sales in a Member State and the purchase of sufficient quantities to achieve that minimum tonnage - Expiry of limitation period applicable to Commission power to impose fines or sanctions - Reasonable time - Essential procedural requirements - Effect on trade between Member States - Right of access to the file - Fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating and mitigating circumstances)

2010/C 37/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Solvay (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Simont, P.-A- Foriers, G. Block, F. Louis and A. Vallery, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and J. Currall, Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/5/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133 — B: Soda ash — Solvay, CFK) (OJ 2003 L 10, p. 1) and, in the alternative, application for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/5/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133 — B: Soda ash — Solvay, CFK) to the extent that it finds that Solvay SA infringed the provisions of Article 81 EC in 1990; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/5/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133 — B: Soda ash — Solvay, CFK) to the extent that it finds that Solvay SA infringed the provisions of Article 81 EC in 1990;

| 2. | Fixes the fine imposed on Solvay at EUR 2.25 million; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Fixes the fine imposed on Solvay at EUR 2.25 million;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 2.6.2001.

1

---
#### § 1911.3 Applicability.

This part does not apply to requests for access to current information or finished intelligence that is routinely disseminated to other Federal agencies in support of the CIA's intelligence, counterintelligence, or special activities responsibilities, or for administrative purposes. This part applies to special requests for access to classified historical CIA records in furtherance of historical research and not expressly required by statute that fall outside of the regular channels and procedures that CIA has already established to provide information to U.S. Government customers. Examples include, but are not limited to, a Federal agency, including a branch of the military, conducting research in preparation for the production of a set of historical studies, an official agency history, or a review of past military activities, that require access to classified historical CIA records.
#### Edward J. Bolla et al., Appellants, v. Howard J. Blaugrund et al., Respondents.

Application for a stay granted pending hearing and determination of appeal, and the Referee is restrained from disbursing this fund except upon the order of this court.
§ 113.3 Definitions. ( a ) *Appearance.* The presence and participation of a member of the Military Services, or an attorney of the member's choosing, throughout the judicial proceeding from which the judgment was issued that is the basis for a request for enforcement through involuntary allotment.
( b ) *Applicant.* The original judgment holder, a successor in interest, or attorney or agent thereof who requests an involuntary allotment from a member of the Military Services pursuant to DoD Directive 1344.9.[1]
( c ) *Pay subject to involuntary allotment.* For purposes of complying with 32 CFR part 112 and 5 U.S.C. 5520a(k), pay subject to involuntary allotment shall be determined by: ( 1 ) Including: ( i ) Basic pay but excluding reduction for education for education benefits under section 38 U.S.C. 1411 (“New G.I. Bill”).
( ii ) Special pay (including enlistment and reenlistment bonuses).
( iii ) Incentive pay.
( iv ) Accrued leave payments (basic pay portion only).
( v ) Readjustment pay.
( vi ) Severance pay (including disability severance pay).
( vii ) Lump-sum Reserve bonus.
( viii ) Inactive duty training pay.
( 2 ) Excluding: ( i ) Retired pay (including) disability retired pay).
( ii ) Retainer pay.
( iii ) Separation pay, Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI), and Special Separation Benefit (SSB).
( iv ) Allowances paid under titles 10 and 37 of the United States Code (e.g., Chapter 53 of title 10 and Chapter 7 of title 37, respectively) and other reimbursements for expenses incurred in connection with duty in the Military Service or allowances in lieu thereof.
( v ) Payments not specifically enumerated in § 113.3(c)(1).
( 3 ) After including the items in § 113.3(c)(1), subtracting the following pay items to compute the final earnings value of the pay subject to involuntary allotment: ( i ) Federal and State employment and income tax withholding (amount limited only to that which is necessary to fulfill member's tax liability).
( ii ) FICA tax.
( iii ) Amounts mandatorily withheld for the United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home.
( iv ) Deductions for the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance coverage.
( v ) Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Plan.
( vi ) Indebtedness to the United States.
( vii ) Fines and forfeitures ordered by a court-martial or a commanding officer.
( viii ) Amounts otherwise required by law to be deducted from a member's pay (except payments under 42 U.S.C. 659, 661, 662, and 665).
( d ) *Preponderance of the evidence.* A greater weight of evidence that is more credible and convincing to the mind. That which best accords with reason and probability. (See Black's Law Dictionary[2])
( e ) *Proper and Timely Manner.* A manner that under the circumstances does not reflect discredit on the Military Service.
Footnotes -
113.3
[1] Copies may be obtained, at cost, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
[2] Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, West Publishing Company, Saint Paul, Minnesota (1952).
# C_2008158EN.01000201.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Ferriere Nord SpA v Commission of the European Communities, Italian Republic

(Case C-49/05 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - Formal examination procedure - Community framework for State aid for environmental protection - Rights of the parties - Application to submit observations - Article 88(2) EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Environmental purpose of the investment)

(2008/C 158/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Ferriere Nord SpA (represented by: W. Viscardini, G. Donà, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, acting as Agent); Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent, and M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 18 November 2004 in Case T-176/01 Ferriere Nord v Commission, dismissing an application for, on the one hand, annulment of Commission Decision 2001/829/EC, ECSC of 28 March 2001 Commission Decision of 28 March 2001 on the State aid which Italy is planning to grant to Ferriere Nord SpA (OJ 2001 L 310, p. 22), declaring incompatible with the common market aid notified as environmental aid which the autonomous Region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia (Italy) is planning to grant to the applicant in the form of a financial contribution to investments in new plant for the production of electrowelded wire mesh to reduce noise and eliminate waste in the form of iron oxide, and, on the other, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following adoption of that decision

Ferriere Nord

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ferriere Nord SpA to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ferriere Nord SpA to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

1

---
#### § 220.12 [Reserved]
### §5501. Disposition of money accruing from lapsed salaries or unused appropriations for salaries

Money accruing from lapsed salaries or from unused appropriations for salaries shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States. An individual who violates this section shall be removed from the service.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 475.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 50 (1st sentence; and 2d sentence, so much as relates to removal). | Aug. 5, 1882, ch. 389, §4 (297th through 316th words), 22 Stat. 255.Aug. 23, 1912, ch. 350, §5 (so much as relates to removal), 37 Stat. 414. |

Statutes at Large

Aug. 23, 1912, ch. 350, §5 (so much as relates to removal), 37 Stat. 414.

In the last sentence, the word "removed" is substituted for "summarily removed" because of the provisions of the Lloyd-LaFollette Act 37 Stat. 555, as amended, and the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 387, as amended, which are carried into this title.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
Geologic Map of

Mount St. Helens, Washington

Prior to the 1980 Eruption

by

Clifford A. Hopson

2008

 

 It is rare that a geologic map exists for a volcano prior to such a catastrophic modification as 

that produced by the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980. As such, this map provides an important 

historical record of the volcano prior to that eruption. The map has not been reviewed or checked for 

conformity to USGS editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature, and it has not been digitized. 

This version of the map is unchanged from that submitted to the USGS for publication shortly after 

the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens and includes unresolved inconsistencies with the subsequently 

published work of Crandell (1987) and Mullineaux (1996). Nevertheless, it is the most accurate 

available depiction of the pre-1980 edifice and is published here for comparison with more recent 

geologic mapping and historical perspectives.

Crandell, D. R., 1987, Deposits of the pre-1980 pyroclastic flows and lahars from Mount St. Helens

 Volcano, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1444, 91 p.

Mullineaux, D. R., 1996, Pre-1980 tephra-fall deposits erupted from Mount St. Helens, Washington:

 U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1563, 99 p.

Digital restoration by David W. Ramsey

Note

Michael A. Clynne

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OPEN-FILE REPORT 02-468

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Sheet 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2 Certification of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





The undersigned officer of The First Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's annual report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2010 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.





Date: December 1, 2015








/s/F. Stephen Ward


F. Stephen Ward


Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
#### Samuel J. Veal *v.*Warden, State Prison

*Denise Ansell,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Leon F. Dalbec, Jr.,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided October 2, 1992

The petitioner Samuel J. Veal’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 28 Conn. App. 425, is denied.
#### § 903.828 Special performance standards—In situ processing.

Part 828 of this chapter, *Special Permanent Program Performance Standards—In Situ Processing,* applies to any person who conducts surface coal mining and reclamation operations that include the in situ processing of coal.
§ 1636.5 Exclusion from Class 1-A-0 and Class 1-0. A registrant shall be excluded from Class 1-A-0 or Class 1-0: ( a ) Who asserts beliefs which are of a religious, moral or ethical nature, but who is found not to be sincere in his assertions; or
( b ) Whose stated objection to participation in war does not rest at all upon moral, ethical, or religious principle, but instead rests solely upon considerations of policy, pragmatism, expediency, or his own self-interest or well-being; or
( c ) Whose objection to participation in war is directed against a particular war rather than against war in any form (a selective objection). If a registrant objects to war in any form, but also believes in a theocratic, spiritual war between the forces of good and evil, he may not by reason of that belief alone be considered a selective conscientious objector.
#### Bennett A. Cohen, Appellant, v Wallace & Minchenberg et al., Defendants, and Panken Besterman, Winer, Becker & Sherman, LLP, et al., Respondents.

[833 NYS2d 623]

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated September 4, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendants Panken, Besterman, Winer, Becker & Sherman, LLR Kenneth Becker, individually and as a member of Panken, Besterman, Winer, Becker & Sherman, LLP, and Richard Becker, individually and as a member of Panken, Besterman, Winer, Becker & Sherman, *LLP,*to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (5), and (7), or for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and denied his cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered May 10, 2004, which, upon the order, is in favor of those defendants and against him dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs notice of appeal from the order is deemed also to be a notice of appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]).

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, with costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review on the appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a]).

It is the appellant’s obligation to assemble a proper record on appeal. The record must contain all of the relevant papers that were before the Supreme Court *(see*CPLR 5526). The record submitted on this appeal renders meaningful appellate review of the Supreme Court’s determination virtually impossible. Therefore, dismissal of the appeal from the judgment is the appropriate disposition *(see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Vargas,**690288 AD2d 309, 310 [2001]; *Singh v Getty Petroleum Corp.,*275 AD2d 740 [2000]; *Patel v Patel,*270 AD2d 241, 242 [2000]). Crane, J.P., Ritter, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### § 1905.1 Scope and purpose.

This part sets forth the policy and procedures with respect to the production or disclosure of (a) material contained in the files of CIA, (b) information relating to or based upon material contained in the files of CIA, and (c) information acquired by any person while such person was an employee of CIA as part of the performance of that person's official duties or because of that person's association with CIA.
§ 1290.5 Background. ( a ) DoD Instruction 6055.4 requires that all traffic violations occurring on DoD installations be referred to the appropriate United States Magistrate, or State or local system magistrate, in the interest of impartial judicial determination and effective law enforcement. Exceptions will be made only for those rare violations in which military discipline is the paramount consideration, or where the Federal court system having jurisdiction has notified the PLFA commander it will not accept certain offenses for disposition.
( b ) Generally, the Federal Magistrate System applies state traffic laws and appropriate Federal laws to all personnel while on Federal property (section 13, title 18 U.S.C., Assimilative Crimes Act).