alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dolan Chemical Laboratory 4001 Bixby Road Groveport, OH 43125 T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221 F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168 http://aepenv/labs 

### Water Analysis Form REP-702 Rev. 0, 4/2012



### Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 3/4/2013 Sample Number: 130819-001 Date Collected:02/27/2013 07:50 Date Received:2/27/2013 

### 1st Stage Feed Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 256 0.50 DPC EPA 200.8 0.20 03/01/2013 14:54 

### Sample Number: 130819-002 Date Collected: 02/27/2013 07:50 Date Received:2/27/2013 

### Bioreactor Effluent Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 1.3 0.50 DPC EPA 200.8 0.20 03/01/2013 14:59

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224 Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 130819 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KAREEM MOSLEY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 508 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of March, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### 1217.7000 Definition.

*Lay Days* means time allowed to the master of a vessel for loading and unloading the same.
### §7255. Milk manufacturing marketing adjustment

#### (a) Maximum allowances established

No State shall provide for a manufacturing allowance for the processing of milk in excess of—

(1) $1.65 per hundredweight of milk for milk manufactured into butter and nonfat dry milk; and

(2) $1.80 per hundredweight of milk for milk manufactured into cheese.

#### (b) "Manufacturing allowance" defined

In this section, the term "manufacturing allowance" means—

(1) the amount by which the product price value of butter and nonfat dry milk manufactured from a hundred pounds of milk containing 3.5 pounds of butterfat and 8.7 pounds of milk solids not fat resulting from a State's yield and product price formulas exceeds the class price for the milk used to produce those products; or

(2) the amount by which the product price value of cheese manufactured from a hundred pounds of milk containing 3.5 pounds of butterfat and 8.7 pounds of milk solids not fat resulting from a State's yield and product price formulas exceeds the class price for the milk used to produce cheese.

#### (c) Effect of violation

If the Secretary determines following a hearing that a State has in effect a manufacturing allowance that exceeds the manufacturing allowance authorized in subsection (a), the Secretary shall suspend purchases of cheddar cheese, butter, and nonfat dry milk produced in that State until such time as the State complies with such subsection.

#### (d) Effective date; implementation

This section (other than subsection (e) 1) shall be effective during the period beginning on the first day of the first month beginning after April 4, 1996, and ending on December 31, 1999. During that period, the Secretary may exercise the authority provided to the Secretary under this section without regard to the issuance of regulations intended to carry out this section.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §145, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 917.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of section 145 of Pub. L. 104–127. Subsec. (e) of section 145 of Pub. L. 104–127 repealed section 1446e–1 of this title and enacted provisions set out as a note under section 1446e–1 of this title.

1 See Codification note below.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL C. ENGLES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 70

)

SHERMAN HOSPITAL, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Michael Engles (“Engles”) has just brought a personal injury

Complaint against Sherman Hospital (“Hospital”), seeking to

invoke federal jurisdiction on diversity grounds under 28 U.S.C.

§1332(a). But although Engles’ counsel has properly identified 1

the Hospital’s dual corporate citizenship under Section

1332(c)(1)(see Complaint ¶6), Complaint ¶3 speaks only of Engles’

Oklahoma residence rather than his state of citizenship.

Under such circumstances our Court of Appeals has taught in

such cases as Adams v. Catrambone, 359 F.3d 858, 861 n.3 (7th

Cir. 2004) that “when the parties allege residence but not

citizenship, the district court must dismiss the suit.” But this

Court has no desire to pursue that Draconian course, given what

would seem to be the probability that Oklahoma is Engles’ state

of citizenship as well as his residence.

Accordingly Engles is granted leave to file an appropriate

 All further references to Title 28’s provisions will 1

simply take the form “Section--.”

Case: 1:12-cv-00070 Document #: 5 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:7
amendment to his Complaint (not a full-blown Amended Complaint)

on or before January 19, 2012, failing which this Court would

indeed be constrained to dismiss this action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. Because of the seeming likelihood that the

present flaw can be cured, this Court is contemporaneously

issuing its customary initial scheduling order.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: January 10, 2012

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00070 Document #: 5 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:8
#### A.J. Pegno Construction Corp./Tully Construction Co., Inc., a Joint Venture, Respondent, v Highlands Insurance Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[834 NYS2d 109]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered June 28, 2006, which, to the extent appealable, granted plaintiff declaratory relief, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered January 23, 2006, which denied defendant Highland Insurance Company’s motion for a stay, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the judgment vacated, and the motion for a stay granted. Appeal from the January 23, 2006 order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

*274The judgment declared that “the Highlands primary liability insurance policy and the Highlands umbrella liability insurance policy . . . issued to Budco Enterprises, Inc. afford liability insurance coverage to Pegno for the claims against Pegno in the underlying *Power*action.” Highlands, a Texas-based insurer that writes policies in all 50 states, moved to stay this declaratory judgment action on the ground that in November 2003, the District Court of Travis County, Texas, appointed the Texas Commissioner of Insurance as Receiver of Highlands for purposes of conserving its assets and rehabilitating its business. Any and all claims against Highlands were to be submitted exclusively to that Receiver. The Texas order further restrained and permanently enjoined all litigation against Highlands. In May 2004, Highlands filed this Texas order in Supreme Court, Westchester County, pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (CPLR art 54). “In accordance with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, a ‘judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect, in every other court of the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced’ ” *(O’Connell v*Corcoran, 1 NY3d 179, 184 [2003], quoting *Underwriters Nat. Assurance Co. v North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guaranty Assn.,*455 US 691, 704 [1982], quoting *Hampton v McConnel, 3*Wheat [16 US] 234, 235 [1818, Marshall, Ch. J.]). Plaintiff improperly commenced this declaratory judgment action, and the court should have granted the motion by Highlands for a stay. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Sullivan, Williams and Catterson, JJ.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲ ▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

06/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
#### Aaron J. Ortner, Respondent, v. Benjamin H. Booth, Respondent, and Sol Kitain et al., Appellants. (Action No. 1.) Sol Kitain et al., Appellants, v. Arthur J. Ortner et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

Order, entered February 10,1964, consolidating motions, adding party defendants, amending the summons and complaint, providing for issuance of supplemental summons and service thereof with amended complaint, providing for answer, removing action and consolidating actions, providing for transfer of papers by Clerk, and, in Action No. 1, dismissing the first defense and counterclaim and fifth defense of defendants Kitain and Surrey Sleep Products, Inc., unanimously modified, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, to eliminate the penultimate (eleventh) ordering paragraph and to deny the cross motion of plaintiff in Action No. 1 to dismiss pursuant to 3211 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules the first defense and counterclaim of defendants Kitain and Surrey Sleep Products, Inc., with costs of the cross motion. Since the cheeks were dated November 29, 1957 and were to be delivered simultaneously with the execution of the agreements, there is an issue of fact whether the agreements were executed and made on the date they recite, namely, November 8, 1957. Moreover, the defense arose and the counterclaim accrued at the time of the damage caused by the duress, which is alleged to be the execution of the agreements and payment of moneys thereunder (see 2 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, § 94, p. 266). Even if this occurred on November 8,1957, the Statute of Limitations had not run against the defense and counterclaim since the complaint was served on November 6, 1963, less than six years from accrual (CPLR 203, subd. [e]; 213; 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 203.24). Settle order on notice. Concur—Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### Audrey Gavriles et al., Appellants, v. Long Island Rail Road Company, Respondent.

Pursuant to stipulation, the motion by respondent to dismiss the appeal is withdrawn and the appeal is discontinued, without costs. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
Department of Education

Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Addendum

February 12, 2018

The fiscal year 2019 Budget was developed to a tightly constrained non-defense discretionary 

(NDD) spending level. While the Budget overall met the current law spending caps, it 

reallocated funds from non-defense to defense to pay for the Administration’s National Security 

and National Defense Strategies. 

However, a 2-year cap deal was recently enacted. This deal raises the fiscal year 2019 caps 

significantly above the previous cap levels. The Administration feels that it must lay out its

roadmap for how to account for the inevitable higher non-defense spending levels in the most 

fiscally responsible manner. The Administration is therefore submitting an addendum to its 2019 

Budget that includes additional funding for a limited set of Administration priorities under the 

new, higher cap levels, including the following at the Department of Education:

Impact Aid Basic Support Payments: An increase of $525 million for a total request of 

$1.189 billion. The addendum would provide an additional $525 million to the Impact Aid 

account for Basic Support Payments. The additional funds would restore funding for this 

program to the fiscal year 2017 appropriation level to continue support for over 1,000 districts 

with a Federal presence.

TRIO: An increase of $400 million for a total request of $950 million. The addendum would 

provide an additional $400 million to the Higher Education account for the Federal TRIO 

programs. The additional funds would restore funding for TRIO to the fiscal year 2017 

appropriation level. These funds would help support continuation awards and allow for an 

orderly transition to restructuring the TRIO programs into a new State formula grant. The 

restructured program would allow States to meet the needs of disadvantaged students as they 

complete high school and succeed in post-secondary education or training. While the GEAR UP 

program would still be eliminated, the revised TRIO program could support GEAR UP activities. 

School Choice: An increase of $500 million for a total request of $1.0 billion. The addendum 

would provide an additional $500 million to the Innovation and Improvement account for the 

new Opportunity Grants program. The total fiscal year 2019 investment supporting public and 

private school choice would be $1 billion. The additional funds would allow more families to 

choose the school that best meets the needs of their children.

Federal Work Study: An increase of $300 million for a total request of $500 million. The 

addendum would provide an additional $300 million to the Student Financial Assistance account 

for a reformed Federal Work-Study program. This funding would expand the reach of the 

program from approximately 130,000 to 333,000 students.

Eliminate the proposed Pell Rescission. The addendum would eliminate the cancellation of 

$1.6 billion of unobligated balances in the Pell Grant program. Projected costs of the program 

remain the same; all eligible students would continue to receive the full grant award for which 

they are eligible.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Annual and Hourly Earnings Philadelphia Knitted-Outerwear Industry, 1943

              																	Mohn, Kermit B.					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Annual and Hourly Earnings Philadelphia Knitted-Outerwear Industry, 1943 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 830*,												Washington, D.C: 								For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 										1945,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4302,			accessed on September 10, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
### §7252. Repealed. Pub. L. 107–76, title VII, §772(b), Nov. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 745

Section, Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §142, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 915; Pub. L. 106–78, title VIII, §807(b), Oct. 22, 1999, 113 Stat. 1181; Pub. L. 106–387, §1(a) [title VII, §742(b)], Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A–35, related to recourse loan program for commercial processors of dairy products.
TO:Chief Financial Officer    

Federal Student Aid

Director, Budget Group

Federal Student Aid

Director, Budget Formulation and Execution Division

Federal Student Aid

Branch Chief, Account Management Branch

Federal Student Aid

Branch Chief, Central Services Branch

Federal Student Aid

FROM:Chief Operating Officer

Federal Student Aid

SUBJECT:Delegation of Authority to Certify Fund Availability

I. **DELEGATION**

Under the authority vested in me by a delegation to all Principal Officers from the Chief Financial Officer, EL/GEN/1, certified on December 3, 1998, I hereby delegate to you, to your successor in function, and to anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the authority to certify funds available for administering the functions and responsibilities of Federal Student Aid.  This authority is issued pursuant to Title 31 of the U.S. Code, which governs the money and finances of the Department.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority delegated herein are included in the scope of this delegation.

# II. RESERVATIONS

None.

# III. REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated.

# IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal Delegations Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this authority.

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by the addressees prior to certification of this delegation.

__________/s/__________

James W. Runcie

Chief Operating Officer     

OGC Concurrence: Michael Taylor

OGC Concurrence Date: 11/3/2015

Certified Date:  11/4/2015

Departmental Delegations Control Officer:  Jim Clemmens

Control Number: EN/ENJ/80
### §6011. Requirement of referendum

#### (a) In general

Not later than 24 months after the effective date of the plan first issued under section 6003 of this title, the Secretary shall conduct a referendum among growers, grower-shellers, and importers, who during a representative period determined by the Secretary have been engaged in the production or importation of pecans, for the purpose of ascertaining whether growers, grower-shellers, and importers favor continuation, termination, or suspension of the plan.

#### (b) Other referenda

#### (1) In general

After the referendum required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall hold a referendum on request of the Board or 10 percent or more of the total number of growers, grower-shellers, and importers, to determine if growers, grower-shellers, and importers favor the termination or suspension of the plan.

#### (2) Suspension or termination

The Secretary shall terminate or suspend such plan, in accordance with section 6012(b) of this title, whenever the Secretary determines that such suspension or termination is favored by a majority of those voting in a referendum.

#### (c) Costs of referendum

The Secretary shall be reimbursed from any assessments collected by the Board for any expenses incurred by the Department in connection with the conduct of any referendum under this chapter, except for the salaries of Government employees.

#### (d) Manner

#### (1) In general

Referenda conducted pursuant to this chapter shall be conducted in such a manner as is determined by the Secretary.

#### (2) Advance registration

A grower, grower-sheller, or importer who chooses to vote in any referendum conducted under this chapter shall register in person prior to the voting period at the appropriate local office of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, as determined by the Secretary, for such grower, grower-sheller, or by mailing such a request to the Secretary on behalf of an importer.

#### (3) Voting

A grower, grower-sheller, or importer who votes in any referendum conducted under this chapter shall vote in person at the appropriate local office of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, as determined by the Secretary or by mail to the Secretary.

#### (4) Notice

Each Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service office shall notify all growers, grower-shellers, and importers in the area of such office, as determined by the Secretary, at least 30 days prior to a referendum conducted under this chapter. Such notice shall explain the registration and voting procedures established under this subsection.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XIX, §1916, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3853.)
#### 1252.217-75 Lay Days.

As prescribed at 1217.7001(c), insert the following clause:

# Lay Days (NOV 2022)

(a) Lay day time will be paid by the Government at the Contractor's stipulated bid price for this item of the contract when the vessel remains on the dry dock or marine railway as a result of any change that involves work in addition to that required under the basic contract.

(b) No lay day time shall be paid until all items of the basic contract for which a price was established by the Contractor and for which docking of the vessel was required have been satisfactorily completed and accepted.

(c) Days of hauling out and floating, whatever the hour, shall not be paid as lay day time, and days when no work is performed by the Contractor shall not be paid as lay day time.

(d) Payment of lay day time shall constitute complete compensation for all costs, direct and indirect, to reimburse the Contractor for use of dry dock or marine railway.

(End of clause)
1.501-2 Opportunity for public comments. ( a ) Views of agencies and nongovernmental parties or organizations will be considered in formulating acquisition policies and procedures.
( b ) The opportunity to submit written comments on proposed significant revisions shall be provided by placing a notice in the Federal Register. Each of these notices shall include— ( 1 ) The text of the revision or, if it is impracticable to publish the full text, a summary of the proposal;
( 2 ) The address and telephone number of the individual from whom copies of the revision, in full text, can be requested and to whom comments thereon should be addressed; and
( 3 ) When 1.501-3(b) is applicable, a statement that the revision is effective on a temporary basis pending completion of the public comment period.
( c ) A minimum of 30 days and, normally, at least 60 days will be given for the receipt of comments.