alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 228.8 Prohibition on photographic or electronic recording or transmitting equipment.

No person entering or while on protected property shall bring or possess any kind of photographic, recording or transmitting equipment (including but not limited to cameras, cellular telephones, or recorders), except as specially authorized by the NSA Director of Security or his designee at each Agency facility.
The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse

Draft Land Use Plan Amendment and

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Volume 1: Chapters 1 – 3

December 2013
BLM/WY/PL-14/006+1110 

The BLM’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the 

public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The 

Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, 

livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, and by 

conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands.
Independent Auditors' Consent


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
333-30895 of Phar-Mor,  Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated  September 24, 2001
(which  report  expresses  an  unqualified  opinion  and  includes   explanatory
paragraphs relating to Phar-Mor's filing for reorganization  under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code and substantial doubt about Phar-Mor's ability
to continue as a going concern) appearing in Form 10-K of Phar-Mor, Inc. for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2001.


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
October 12, 2001
#### § 1804.16 Action by appeal authority.

The record compiled (the request, the memoranda filed by the originator and interested parties, and the previous decision(s)) as well as any memorandum of law or policy the referent desires to be considered, shall be certified by the Coordinator and shall constitute the official record of the proceedings and must be included in any subsequent filings. In such cases, the factors to be determined as specified in § 1804.14(a) will be considered by the Director, NACIC de novo and that decision shall be final.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThin N-I-P radiation resistant solar cellsSeveral sets of N-I-P sola cells were fabricated from high resistivity silicon to test the effectiveness of various methods for hardening these devices against radiation. Different substrate materials were used to provide information on the effects of dopant concentration, silicon type, and the presence of oxygen. In some cells, P-type float-zone refined silicon of 800, 8000 and 15,000 omega-cm resistivity was used to provide a basis for studying resistivity and purity effects. In other cells, N-type silicon (approximately 800 omega-cm) was used to allow a comparison of dopant type. Oxygen-rich, crucible-grown, silicon (approximately 100 omega-cm, p-type) will provide information on purity effects and defect gettering. Lithium was introduced into different types of silicon to determine if mobile ions can reduce radiation induced defects in high resistivity material. Thin cells (2 mil) were fabricated to study the effects of cell thickness and carrier injection on radiation damage. The electrical characteristics of the different sets of cells were measured, analyzed, and compared prior to shipment of the cells to NASA/Lewis for irradiation.Document ID19840007614Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMeulenberg, A.*(Communications Satellite Corp. Clarksburg, MD, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1983Subject CategoryEnergy Production And ConversionReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:168284NASA-CR-168284Accession Number84N15682Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-22245Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840007614.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
#### TIFFANY v. MITCHELL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 24, 1905.)

Action by Louis C. Tiffany against Annie O. Mitchell. No opinion. Motion granted, so far as to dismiss appeal, with $10 costs.
### Subdivision 2—Administered Jointly With National Park Service
§ 200.220 Determinations regarding the amount of penalties and assessments. In considering the factors listed in § 200.140— ( a ) It should be considered a mitigating circumstance if all the items or services or violations included in the action brought under this part were of the same type and occurred within a short period of time, there were few such items or services or violations, and the total amount claimed or requested for such items or services was less than $5,000.
( b ) Aggravating circumstances include— ( 1 ) The violations were of several types or occurred over a lengthy period of time;
( 2 ) There were many such items or services or violations (or the nature and circumstances indicate a pattern of claims or requests for payment for such items or services or a pattern of violations);
( 3 ) The amount claimed or requested for such items or services, or the amount of the overpayment was $50,000 or more;
( 4 ) The violation resulted, or could have resulted, in patient harm, premature discharge, or a need for additional services or subsequent hospital admission; or
( 5 ) The amount or type of financial, ownership, or control interest or the degree of responsibility a person has in an entity was substantial with respect to an action brought under § 200.200(b)(3).
#### § 113.2 Applicability.

This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments (including the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a Military Service in the Navy by agreement with the Department of Transportation), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, and the DoD Field Activities (hereafter referred to collectively as “the DoD Components”). The term “Military Services,” as used herein, refers to the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

West Point Contractors, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W912PL-13-D-0022 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 60770, 60771 

60772,60773 

Robert G. Ruggieri, Esq. 

Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall 

& Furman P.C. 

Philadelphia, PA 

Thomas J. Warren, Esq. 

Acting Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

John F. Bazan, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorney 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CLARKE 

It is the Board's decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b), and the 

parties' stipulation and agreement, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a 

consent judgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of 

$522,614.51. This amount is inclusive of interest. No further interest shall be paid. 

Dated: 1 March 2018 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

J. RE1PROUTY 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 60770, 60771, 60772, 

60773, Appeals of West Point Contractors, Inc., rendered in conformance with the 

Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
# C_2008022EN.01000202.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-280/05) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Incompatibility with the common market - Duty to recover - Non-fulfilment)

(2008/C 22/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, acting as Agent, and D. Del Gaizo, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2004/800/EC of 30 March 2004 declaring incompatible with the common market the aid scheme put into effect by Italy providing for urgent measures to assist employment in firms in financial difficulty, in special administration, and having at least 1 000 employees (Aid No CR 62/2003, ex NN 7/2003 — Italy) (OJ 2004 L 352, p. 10) — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to recover the aid declared incompatible with the common market

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2004/800/EC of 30 March 2004 on the State aid scheme put into effect by Italy providing for urgent measures to assist employment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2004/800/EC of 30 March 2004 on the State aid scheme put into effect by Italy providing for urgent measures to assist employment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;

| 2. | orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.

1

---
### §3522. Agency plans; approval

(a) Before obligating any resources for voluntary separation incentive payments, the head of each agency shall submit to the Office of Personnel Management a plan outlining the intended use of such incentive payments and a proposed organizational chart for the agency once such incentive payments have been completed.

(b) The plan of an agency under subsection (a) shall include—

(1) the specific positions and functions to be reduced or eliminated;

(2) a description of which categories of employees will be offered incentives;

(3) the time period during which incentives may be paid;

(4) the number and amounts of voluntary separation incentive payments to be offered; and

(5) a description of how the agency will operate without the eliminated positions and functions.

(c) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall review each agency's plan an 1 may make any appropriate modifications in the plan, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. A plan under this section may not be implemented without the approval of the Directive 2 of the Office of Personnel Management.

(Added Pub. L. 107–296, title XIII, §1313(a)(1)(A), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2292.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 60 days after Nov. 25, 2002, see section 1313(a)(4) of Pub. L. 107–296, set out as a note under section 3521 of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be "and".

2 So in original. Probably should be "Director".
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9888 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9888

 To direct the Secretary of Transportation to update guidance for the 
 National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program to increase 
 the flexibility of States related to the location of electric vehicle 
            charging infrastructure, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 2024

Mr. Trone (for himself and Mr. Ruppersberger) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for 
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Transportation to update guidance for the 
 National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program to increase 
 the flexibility of States related to the location of electric vehicle 
            charging infrastructure, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NATIONAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE FORMULA PROGRAM 
              GUIDANCE.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall update the 
guidance for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula 
Program established in paragraph (2) under the heading ``Department of 
Transportation--Federal Highway Administration--Highway Infrastructure 
Program'' in title VIII of division J of the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58) to specify that a State may certify 
and the Secretary may determine that a State is fully built out with 
electric vehicle charging infrastructure which is located more than 1 
mile from the highway, as long as that electric vehicle charging 
infrastructure was selected considering the potential economic benefit 
to communities and small businesses along an alternative fuel corridor.
    (b) Alternative Fuel Corridor Defined.--In this Act, the term 
``alternative fuel corridor'' means a national electric vehicle 
charging and hydrogen, propane, and natural gas fueling corridor 
designated by the Secretary under section 151 of title 23, United 
States Code.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
CyberOptics Corporation on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-21092, 33-41509, 33-41515,
33-50510, 33-80838 and 33-39091) of our reports dated January 29, 1999, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule
of CyberOptics Corporation as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 1998 which reports are included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                                    PricewaterhouseCooper LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 19, 1999


                                       50
# C_2008183EN.01001802.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/18

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-18/04) (1)

1

(Social Security - Application for assumption of responsibility for medical expenses - Implied rejection of the application)

(2008/C 183/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: initially A. Distante, then G. Cipressa, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Curral, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

First, an application for annulment of the Appointing Authority's implied decision rejecting the applicant's application of 25 November 2002 for reimbursement of 100 % of medical expenses under Article 72 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, secondly, an application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant's complaint against the rejection of the application of 25 November 2002, thirdly, an application for a declaration of the applicant's entitlement, under Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to reimbursement of 100 % of the medical expenses incurred in the treatment for the diseases from which he suffered and, fourthly, an application for an order that the Commission pay 100 % of those medical expenses.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the implied rejection of the application of 25 November 2002; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the implied rejection of the application of 25 November 2002;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004.

1

---
§ 211.9 Mitigation options. ( a ) In discussing mitigation to avoid an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States, the DoD Components designated to discuss mitigation with an applicant or requester shall, as appropriate and as time allows, analyze the following types of DoD mitigation to determine if they identify feasible and affordable actions that may be taken to mitigate adverse impacts of projects on military operations and readiness: ( 1 ) Modifications to military operations.
( 2 ) Modifications to radars or other items of military equipment.
( 3 ) Modifications to military test and evaluation activities, military training routes, or military training procedures.
( 4 ) Providing upgrades or modifications to existing systems or procedures.
( 5 ) The acquisition of new systems by the DoD and other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
( b ) In discussing mitigation to avoid an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States, the applicant or requester, as the case may be, should consider the following possible actions: ( 1 ) Modification of the proposed structure, operating characteristics, or the equipment in the proposed project.
( 2 ) Changing the location of the proposed project.
( 3 ) Limiting daily operating hours or the number of days the equipment in the proposed structure is in use in order to avoid interference with military activities.
( 4 ) Providing a voluntary contribution of funds to offset the cost of measures undertaken by the Secretary of Defense to mitigate adverse impacts of the project on military operations and readiness.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department **720 CAF 14-00385**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JAVONTE G.
----------------------------------------------- JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ORDER PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; SHAWN E., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (ELIZABETH deV. MOELLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. ARTHUR C. STEVER, IV, WATERTOWN, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. SCOTT A. OTIS, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, WATERTOWN. Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Richard V. Hunt, J.), entered February 19, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order terminated the parental rights of respondent. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: June 12, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### In the Matter of Vincent P. Brevetti for Reinstatement as a Member of the Bar.

By order made and entered April 11, 1960, the application of the petitioner for reinstatement as a member of the Bar was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness of the Second Judicial District for investigation into his character and fitness and for its report, together with its recommendation. The report, recommending reinstatement, has been received. Application granted and petitioner reinstated as member of the Bar. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
### §8479. Exculpatory provisions; insurance

(a) Any provision in an agreement or instrument which purports to relieve a fiduciary from responsibility or liability for any responsibility, obligation, or duty under this subchapter shall be void.

(b)(1) The Executive Director may require employing agencies to contribute an amount not to exceed 1 percent of the amount such agencies are required to contribute in accordance with section 8432(c) of this title to the Thrift Savings Fund.

(2) The sums credited to the Thrift Savings Fund under paragraph (1) shall be available and may be used at the discretion of the Executive Director to purchase insurance to cover potential liability of persons who serve in a fiduciary capacity with respect to the Thrift Savings Fund, without regard to whether a policy of insurance permits recourse by the insurer against the fiduciary in the case of a breach of a fiduciary obligation.

(Added Pub. L. 99–335, title I, §101(a), June 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 588.)