alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         225,829
<SECURITIES>                                 2,300,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,262,975
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  9,164,785
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,687,841
<PP&E>                                      12,390,370
<DEPRECIATION>                             (9,266,777)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,811,434
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,124,666
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       504,979
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,686,768
<SALES>                                      2,523,984
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,523,984
<CGS>                                        2,125,279
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,125,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               416,781
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                131,042
<INCOME-TAX>                                    47,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             84,042
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    84,042
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   84,042
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
#### 1231.205 Selected costs.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6679** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appell ee ,
v. BRADLEY SHANE SHEPPARD , Defendant

– Appell ant .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Dist rict of South Carolina , at Anderson
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 8 : 04

- c r - 00 42 0

- HM H

- 1 )

Submitted : Ju ly 2 7 , 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON a nd KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss e d by un pub lished per curiam opinion
. Bradley Shane Sheppard , Appellant Pro Se
. Alan Lance Crick , Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bradley Shane Sheppard seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of his sentence . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denied relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard b y demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling in debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have i ndependently reviewed the record and conclude that Sheppard has not made the requisite showing. The district court lacked jurisdiction to deny Sheppard’s Rule 60(b) motion on the merits because the claim he raised challenged the validity of his sentence, and thus the motion should have been construed as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)3 motion. See Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 531

- 32 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized second or succes sive habeas corpus petition); United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003) (same). In the absence of pre

- filing authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 224 4(b)(3) (2006). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the d ecisional
process. DISMISSED
### §307. Fees for locating land scrip

The land officers shall receive the same fees for locating land scrip issued under the provisions of this subchapter as was on July 2, 1862, allowed for the location of military bounty land warrants under laws existing at that time: Provided, That their maximum compensation shall not be thereby increased.

(July 2, 1862, ch. 130, §7, 12 Stat. 505.)
#### 1.403 Individual deviations.

Individual deviations affect only one contract action, and, unless 1.405(e) is applicable, may be authorized by the agency head. The contracting officer must document the justification and agency approval in the contract file.

[67 FR 13053, Mar. 20, 2002]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Nicholas Martin

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−00215

Honorable Morton Denlow

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, September 12, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Morton Denlow:Motion hearing held on

9/12/2012. For the reasons stated in open court, Plaintiff's motion for clarification on class

certification [38] is granted. Mailed notice(ldg, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-00215 Document #: 41 Filed: 09/12/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:274
#### Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Appellant, v Peter Garofano, Also Known as Peter Garafano, et al., Respondents.

In a condemnation proceeding, the appeal is *from*an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered October 5, 1977, which, *inter alia,*(1) confirmed the amended report of the Commissioners of Appraisal, dated July 28, 1976, (2) directed appellant to pay respondent Peter Garofano the sum of $44,000 as compensation and (3) granted said respondent an additional allowance of $2,200. Order affirmed, with costs. In this matter, issues of fact were presented to the commissioners and resolved by them. It cannot be said that their findings were not supported by substantial evidence. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
M. P. No. 74-320.

#### Victor Walka *v.*Frank Bestwick, Jr. Victor Walka *v.*William Collins.

*Letts, Quinn & Licht, Daniel J. Murray, Jerome B. Spunt, Frank Licht,*for respondent-appellee. *Alan H. Pearlman,*for petitioners-appellants.

Petition of William Collins and Frank Bestwick, Jr. for a writ of certiorari is denied. As of this date, no final judgment has been entered in the Superior Court below which might be the subject of review by appellate court.
#### Charles F. Scribner et al. *v.*O’Brien, Inc., et al.

*James B. Fogarty, Jr.,*in support of the motions.

*Melvin J. Silverman,*in opposition.

*Melvin J. Silverman,*in support of the motion.

*James B. Fogarty, Jr.,*in opposition.

Submitted October 2

decided October 8, 1974

The plaintiffs’ “First Motion for Review” of the order of the trial referee dated August 6, 1974, in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford is granted and the relief requested therein is denied.

The plaintiffs’ “Second Motion for Review” of the order of the trial referee dated August 6, 1974, in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford is granted and the relief requested therein is denied.

The defendants’ “Motion for an Order Vacating the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas for Lack of Jurisdiction” in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County at Stamford is denied.
**Exhibit 10(a)(6)**

**[Chaikin, Cohen, Rubin & Gilboa. Letterhead]**

June 18, 2003

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

We hereby consent to the the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Scitex Corporation Ltd. (“Scitex”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the “Annual Report”), and to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Scitex on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-34233, Registration No. 33-46861, Registration No. 33-87614, Registration No. 33-97622, Registration No. 33-97624 and Registration No. 33-39364), of our Report dated February 16, 2003, with respect to the financial statements Objet Geometries Ltd. as of December 31, 2002, which are included in the Annual Report.

 

|  |   | Sincerely yours,                                |
|--|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|  |   |                                            |
|  |   | /s/          Chaikin, Cohen, Rubin & Gilboa |
|  |   | Chaikin, Cohen,    Rubin & Gilboa           |
|  |   | Certified        Public Accountants (Isr.)      |

****
#### Gertrude Fassnacht, as Administratrix of the Estate of Richard Fassnacht, Deceased, Respondent, v Jean P. Hartman, Appellant.

— In a medical malpractice action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 27, 1978, which denied his motion to either dismiss or correct the complaint, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion requiring him to appear for an examination before trial. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, the cross motion is denied and the branch of the motion which sought to dismiss the complaint is granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to replead, if she be so advised, within 20 days after service upon her of a copy of the order to be entered herein, together with notice of entry thereof. In failing to particularize the material elements of plaintiff’s claim, the complaint violated the requirements of CPLR 3013. It omits any reference to times or types of treatment; it fails to assert any facts supporting a claim for wrongful death; it fails to separately state and number its various causes of action, as required by CPLR 3014; and it fails to include the statement required by CPLR 3017 (subd [c]) that the damages sought exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts. Furthermore, to require defendant to submit to an examination before trial at this stage and to bring with him all "relevant” records, constitutes a waiver of his right, under CPLR 3106, of priority of deposition, as well as his entitlement to a bill of particulars before he appears for such an examination. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, O’Connor and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
# CPSC Workshop Potential Ways to Reduce Third Party Testing

CPSC National Product Testing and Evaluation Center Rockville, Maryland

April 03, 2014

Sanjeev Gandhi

DVP and Technical Director SGS North America, Inc.2 

# Workshop Goals

 Identify what material specific exemptions can be determined to reduce testing based validation

• Phthalates, Lead, and 8 Soluble HMs



##  Consider

• Intrinsic material characteristics

• Manufacturing, processing, downstream use



##  Compliance should not be compromised

 Provide tangible saving in testing cost3 

# Phthalates

 Phthalates: Suspect list exists  vinyl and vinyl like soft plastics

• Create a Positive List for exempt plastics/materials

Plastics commonly

used in consumer applications*
 PE  33 %
 PP  21 %
 PS  8 %
 PVC  17 %
 ABS  < 10%

* Plastics Europe: MRG Report Other Plastics: Not common for consumer products
POM  automotive and consumer electronics

PBT  electrical housings, automotive plugs,

showerheads
PC  electronics, construction, aerospace

PLA  medical implants, biodegradable
PPS  electrical insulation, specialty membranes4 

# A look at the empirical data....

 Test data for phthalates

• 10, 400 data points

• Plastics data represents 60

- 70 of the total data points

• The bill of materials is not provided5 

# Testing Lab perspective ....

 Lab data for phthalates

• Data is not granular to provide specific polymers that can be considered categorically for exemption

• Across all the plastic and rubber like materials, high compliance rate with the limits, approx 95%

• The difference in fail and positive detection (above DL) ≈ 1000 data points (for plastics and rubber)

• This alludes to possible contamination issue

• Mixing of polymers intended or otherwise6 

# Phthalates

 Technical/Practical considerations determination of a positive

list

• Bill of materials from upstream supplier: guarantee letter

• Exemption based on material properties that change pure polymers with addition of plasticizer

– Shore hardness  known potential issues

– Glass transition temperature  not fully examined in scientific

literature
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. W ADE PATRIC K W R IGHT,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-30154

D.C . No. 9:15-c r-00025-DW M
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dona ld W . M olloy , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d April 11, 2017 ** B e fore : GOULD, C LIFTON, a nd HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. W a de Patric k Wright a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd
c ha lle nge s the 58-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for posse s sion with inte

nt to distribute

c ontrolle d substa

nc e s, in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C
. § 841(a )(1). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e dism iss, but 

# F IL ED APR 20 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re m and for the distric t c ourt to c orre c t the judgm e nt.

Wright c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt viola

t e d his due proc e s s rights by
re ly ing on unre lia

ble he arsay e vide nc e in a

pply ing a two-le ve l e nha

n c e m e n t pursua nt to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The gove rnm e nt c onte n ds tha t this a ppe a l is ba rre d by the a p pe a l w a ive r c onta ine d in thepa rtie s’ ple a a gre e m e nt. R e vie wing de novo, se e Unite d State s v . Bible r , 495 F.3d 621, 623 (9th C i r. 2007), we dism iss. Thedistric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in finding tha t the he arsay sta te m e nts ha d suffic ie n t indic ia of re lia bility give n the c o rroborat ing fire arm and drug e vide nc e found in W right’ s a pa rtm e nt. S e e Unite d State

s v . He rnande

zGue rre ro , 633 F.3d 933, 935 (9th C ir. 2011) (re lia bility de te rm i nation re vie we d for
a buse o f disc re tion); Unite d State s v . Vande rw e rfhorst , 576 F.3d 929, 936 (9th C ir. 2009) ( “ C ha lle nge d inform ation is de e m e d fa lse or unre lia ble if it la c ks som e m inim a l indic ium

of re lia b i lity be y ond m e re a lle gation.” (inte rna l quota tions
om i tte d)). In a

ny e v e nt, the distric t c ourt c orre c tly de t e rm i ne d tha

t, indepe nde nt of the c ha lle nge d he arsay , it wa s not “ c le arly im proba ble ” tha t Wright posse sse d a fire arm in c onne c tion with his drug offe nse . Se e U.S.S.G § 2D1.1 c m t. n. 11(A). B e c a use Wright’ s due proc e ss rights were not viola te d , we dism iss pursua

nt to the
va lid a ppe a l wa ive r. Se e Bible r , 495 F.3d a t 624. W e re m and to thedistric t c ourt with instructions to c orre c t Wright’ s
1 6
- 3 0 1 5 4 2judgm e nt to re fle c t the c orre c t sta tute of c onvic tion, 21 U.S.C . § 841. DISM I SSE D; RE M ANDE D to c or r e c t the judgm e nt.

1 6
- 3 0 1 5 4 3
II 

Calendar No. 99 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 723 

[Report No. 115–80] 

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric 

project. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27, 2017 

Mr. BURR (for himself and Mr. TILLIS) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

MAY 24, 2017 

Reported by Ms. MURKOWSKI, with amendments 

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction 

of a hydroelectric project. 

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


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 723 RS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR HYDRO2 ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period 

4 specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 

5 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the Federal En6 ergy Regulatory Commission project numbered 12642, the 

7 Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the 

8 project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with 

9 the good faith, due diligence, and public interest require10 ments of that section and the procedures of the Commis11 sion Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (referred to in 

12 this section as the ‘‘Commission’’) under that section, ex13 tend the time period during which the licensee is required 

14 to commence the construction of the project for up to 3 

15 consecutive 2-year periods from the date of the expiration 

16 of the extension originally issued by the Commission. 

17 (b) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the 

18 period required for commencement of construction of the 

19 project described in subsection (a) has expired prior to the 

20 date of enactment of this Act— 

21 (1) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

22 may reinstate the license effective as of the date of 

23 the expiration of the license; and 

24 (2) the first extension authorized under sub25 section (a) shall take effect on that expiration date. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 99 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 723 

[Report No. 115–80] 

A BILL 

To extend the deadline for commencement of 

construction of a hydroelectric project. 

MAY 24, 2017 

Reported with amendments 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 542 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 542

   To amend title 9, United States Code, with respect to arbitration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 7, 2017

 Mr. Whitehouse (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
   Franken, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Merkley) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 9, United States Code, with respect to arbitration.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Safety Over Arbitration Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES INVOLVING HAZARDS TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND 
              SAFETY.

    (a) In General.--Title 9, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:

``CHAPTER 4--ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES INVOLVING HAZARDS TO PUBLIC HEALTH 
                               AND SAFETY

``Sec.
``401. Definition.
``402. Election of arbitration.

``SEC. 401. DEFINITION.

    ``In this chapter, the term `hazard to public health or safety' 
means an activity, substance, or condition that has a potential to 
cause harm to the health or safety of the public.

``SEC. 402. ELECTION OF ARBITRATION.

    ``(a) Consent Required.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, whenever a contract between an individual and another party 
requires the use of arbitration to resolve a claim or controversy 
alleging facts relevant to a hazard to public health or safety, 
arbitration may be used to resolve such claim or controversy only if, 
after such controversy arises, all parties to such controversy consent 
in writing to use arbitration.
    ``(b) Explanation Required.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, whenever arbitration is elected to resolve a claim or controversy 
pursuant to subsection (a), the arbitrator shall provide the parties to 
such contract with a written explanation of the factual and legal basis 
for any award or other outcome, which shall not be made under seal by 
the arbitrator or a court.
    ``(c) Application.--This section shall apply to any contract 
entered into after the date of enactment of this chapter.''.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of chapters for 
title 9, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``4. Arbitration of disputes involving hazards to public         401''.
                            health and safety.
                                 <all>
```