alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

KEVIN BATES,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA'S 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PA.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 6 EM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4

th day of May, 2023, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
#### Emelene Russo, an Infant, et al., Respondents, v. William Oleschuk, Appellant.

Motion by appellant for a stay, pending appeal, granted, on condition that appellant perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the October Term, beginning October 1, 1962; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before July 16, 1962. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### BALDERMAN, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by Emil Balderman against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

H. A. Robinson (Arthur K. Wing and F. Angelo Gaynor, of counsel), for appellant. Droege & Schavrin, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

We do not think the verdict is grossly against the weight of evidence, nor even that it preponderates in favor of the defendant. The case was fairly submitted to the jury by the learned trial court, and the jury resolved the conflict in the evidence in favor of the plaintiff. As there is evidence to sustain the verdict, we do not think it should be disturbed. The judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Adolf Eckhaus, Respondent, against Adeck Stores, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by employer and carrier from an award for disability due to a heart attack. Appellants question the finding of accident. Claimant was the president and sole stockholder of the employer. His medical history indicated arteriosclerosis and diabetes. He testified that as he was driving a company ear returning from a business mission another ear coming onto the highway from an access lane designed to merge traffic on the main highway, pulled in front of him, requiring him to suddenly apply his brakes to avoid a collision. He says he felt a sharp pain in his chest at the time, but continued his journey, parked his ear and stopped in a drug store for an alka-seltzer. Thereafter he met a friend who recommended a doctor in the neighborhood *570who saw claimant and advised hospitalization. Claimant refused and went home. Later the family physician was called, who in turn called in a specialist, and a final diagnosis of coronary occlusion with myocardial infarction was made. Claimant did not testify as to sudden surprise, fright or shock at the time of the highway incident. He was aware of the ear on the access strip and watched the situation develop which finally resulted in a car proceeding in the same direction entering claimant’s lane so close ahead of him that he was required to apply his brakes. We do not think this would be regarded as an accident in the view of the average man. Such incidents occur with great frequency in modem traffic. Certainly a traffic situation which requires the application of brakes would ordinarily be considered a commonplace occurrence rather than an accident. While this case is rather close factually to *Matter of Wachsstock*v. *Skyview Tramp. Co.*(5 A D 2d 1028), an award here would mean an extension of a rule already extended to the limit. In the *Wachsstock*case a taxicab driver was suddenly confronted with a head-on collision when another car approached in the opposite direction in the wrong lane on a bridge. (Cf. *Matter of Santacroce*v. *40 W. 20th*St., 9 A D 2d 985.) Award reversed and the claim dismissed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.
#### 1316.206-3 Limitations.

The designee authorized to approve use of fixed-ceiling-price contracts with retroactive price redetermination is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
#### Joan C. Barber, Respondent, v. Harold L. Barber, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term which granted plaintiff’s motion for temporary alimony and counsel fees in an action for divorce. The moving papers contain no factual averments tending to support the allegations, made upon information and belief, of defendant’s adultery or to indicate the probability of plaintiff’s success in the action. There is no denial of defendant’s statement in his answering affidavit that he has turned over to plaintiff property of substantial value. Special Term dealt with this question by stating quite correctly that in the absence of a separation agreement defendant remains liable for his wife’s support. Nevertheless, defendant’s averments had some 'bearing on plaintiff’s present necessities and called for some answer or explanation. Plaintiff states that she earns $40 per week when she is able to work. The questions of support presented by this particularly unfortunate litigation might, perhaps, be best determined, in the event of a subsequent sufficient motion, after a hearing and the reception of evidence by the Special Term. Order reversed and motion denied, without costs and without prejudice. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ. concur.
### Part III—Loss of Nationality
§ 776.6 Conflict. ( a ) To the extent that a conflict exists between this part and the rules of other jurisdictions that regulate the professional conduct of attorneys, this part will govern the conduct of covered attorneys engaged in legal functions under JAG cognizance and supervision. Specific and significant instances of conflict between the rules contained in subpart B of this part and the rules of other jurisdictions shall be reported promptly to the Rules Counsel (see § 776.9 of this part), via the supervisory attorney. See § 776.53 of this part.
( b ) In the case of Navy and Marine Corps personnel engaged in legal functions under Department of Defense (DoD) vice JAG cognizance and supervision (e.g., DoD Office of Military Commissions), this part and the applicable DoD professional responsibility rules apply. In such a case, to the extent that a conflict exists between Subpart B of this part and applicable DoD professional responsibility rules, the DoD rules shall take precedence.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

### What's New

                  - FY 2025 President’s Budget Request for the Department of Education

Welcome to the Budget homepage of the United States Department of Education (ED). Here you'll find a wealth of information about the President's FY 2025 Budget Request for ED, including a program-by-program description of the request. In Budget News, we track Congressional action on the Department's budget and keep you updated on other important budget-related news. We also provide a variety of detailed budget tables on key aspects of the Department's budget, including the President's Budget Request, Congressional action on appropriations, State allocations, and historical funding levels.

It is important to point out that education in America is primarily a State and local responsibility, and ED's budget is only a small part of both total national education spending and the overall Federal budget, as we explain in a primer on the Federal role in education. In addition to this historical background, we try to demystify the Federal budget process and show how it is carried out in ED.

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | President's Education Budget Request |  |
|  |
|  | Budget Tables |  |
|  |
|  | Budget News |  |
|  |
|  | ED Budget Process and Calendar |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 10.7


                                ASSUMPTION OF THE
                           UCAR CARBON RETIREMENT PLAN
                             BY UCAR GRAPH-TECH INC.

                  1. Assumption by UCAR Graph-Tech Inc. Subject to the consent
of UCAR Carbon Company Inc., and pursuant to a resolution by the Board of
Directors of UCAR Graph-Tech Inc. ("Corporation") dated December 31, 1999, the
Corporation does hereby adopt and assume, jointly and severally, the obligations
of UCAR Carbon Company Inc. under the UCAR Carbon Retirement Plan ("Retirement
Plan"), and the trust agreement, dated as of October 28, 1992, between UCAR
Carbon Company Inc. and Mellon Bank, N.A. established in connection with the
Retirement Plan ("Trust Agreement"), and hereby appoints UCAR Carbon Company
Inc. as its agent and attorney in fact for all purposes with respect to the
Retirement Plan and the Trust Agreement, including amending or terminating the
Retirement Plan and Trust Agreement and giving or receiving notices,
instructions, directions and other communications to the Trustee.

                     Signed this 31st day of December, 1999.


                                          UCAR GRAPH-TECH INC.


                                          By: /s/ John J. Wetula
                                              ---------------------------------
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 cost
3

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 membranes
4

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 provided

 
5

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 otherwise
6

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
1028.310-70 Agency contract clause for work on a Government installation. ( a ) Insert a clause substantially similar to 1052.228-70, Insurance requirements, in all solicitations and contracts that contain the clause at FAR 52.228-5.
[80 FR 11596, Mar. 4, 2015]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         78,395
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  184,415
<ALLOWANCES>                                   3,026
<INVENTORY>                                    167,793
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               436,806
<PP&E>                                         401,053
<DEPRECIATION>                                 247,091
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 682,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,689
<BONDS>                                        38,031
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,027
<OTHER-SE>                                     507,751
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   682,903
<SALES>                                        852,915
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               852,915
<CGS>                                          521,996
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  521,996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               171,123
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               608
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6,060
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                157,344
<INCOME-TAX>                                   53,497
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            103,847
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   103,847
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.18
        

</TABLE>
13.302-1 General. ( a ) Except as provided under the unpriced purchase order method (see 13.302-2), purchase orders generally are issued on a fixed-price basis. See 12.207 for acquisition of commercial products and commercial services.
( b ) Purchase orders shall— ( 1 ) Specify the quantity of supplies or scope of services ordered;
( 2 ) Contain a determinable date by which delivery of the supplies or performance of the services is required;
( 3 ) Provide for inspection as prescribed in part 46. Generally, inspection and acceptance should be at destination. Source inspection should be specified only if required by part 46. When inspection and acceptance will be performed at destination, advance copies of the purchase order or equivalent notice shall be furnished to the consignee(s) for material receipt purposes. Receiving reports shall be accomplished immediately upon receipt and acceptance of supplies;
( 4 ) Specify f.o.b. destination for supplies to be delivered within the United States, except Alaska or Hawaii, unless there are valid reasons to the contrary; and
( 5 ) Include any trade and prompt payment discounts that are offered, consistent with the applicable principles at 14.408-3.
( c ) The contracting officer's signature on purchase orders shall be in accordance with 4.101 and the definitions at 2.101. Facsimile and electronic signature may be used in the production of purchase orders by automated methods.
( d ) Limit the distribution of copies of purchase orders and related forms to the minimum deemed essential for administration and transmission of contractual information.
( e ) In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3332, electronic funds transfer (EFT) is required for payments except as provided in 32.1110. See Subpart 32.11 for instructions for use of the appropriate clause in purchase orders. When obtaining oral quotes, the contracting officer shall inform the quoter of the EFT clause that will be in any resulting purchase order.
[62 FR 64917, Dec. 9, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 10540, Mar. 4, 1999; 86 FR 61025, Nov. 4, 2021]
Exhibit 32.1

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 Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Noble, Chairman/Director and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/    David J. NobleDavid J. NobleChairman/DirectorAnd Principal Executive OfficerOctober 15, 2008Date
### §1769. "Agricultural commodity" defined

The term "agricultural commodity" as used in this chapter includes any agricultural commodity or product thereof.

(Aug. 28, 1954, ch. 1041, title VI, §609, as added Pub. L. 95–501, title IV, §401(6), Oct. 21, 1978, 92 Stat. 1691.)
Muldoon, Albert (OST) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: All, Muldoon, Albert (OST) Friday, February 08, 2013 4:44 PM mayor.office@cityofcarlsbadnm.com; 'jwaters@developcarlsbad.org' Boutique Air, Daniel Helland (daniel@boutiqueair.com); Pacific Wings, Greg Kahlstorf (gkahlstorf@pacificwings.com); Bob Karns (Bob@Sovereignairinc.com); Devany, Dennis (OST) (Dennis.DeVany@dot.gov) EAS at Carlsbad, NM - Request for Additional Comments - Due February 20, 2013

Thankyou for responding promptly to our request for comments regarding the carrier selection decision at Carlsbad. Inlight ofyour comments, we would like to provide you withthe following feedback and ask for your additional input. As we have reviewed the bids, we have eliminated SovereignAir'sproposals from consideration as they do not currentlyhave the requisite authority to operate the proposed service from either the Federal AviationAdministration orthe Department. We will also not consider either Option 1 or Option2 from Boutique Air as we find themnot responsive to the RFP. They would bothprovide air service significantly in excess ofwhatwas requested and would require subsidy amounts that the Department cannot justify (particularly in light ofpotential sequestrationwhich may result in communities losing service all together). Therefore, we are now corning backto you and askingthat you narrow.your considerationto New Mexico Airlines' proposal and Option 3 (DFW only service) from Boutique Air. Please provide us with your thoughts regarding these two service options no later than February 20th. Regards,
Dennis DeVany Chief, Essential Air Service Division U.S. Department ofTransportation

I,.: .. )

1 ....... '····',

...'
| CERTIFICATION                   |
|---------------------------------|
|                            |
| I, VINCENT SORGI, certify that: |
|                            |   |
| 1.                              | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (the "registrant") for the year ended December 31, 2009; and |
|                            |   |
| 2.                              | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|                            |   |
|                            |   |
|                            |   |
|                            |   |
|                            |   |
| Date:  April 27, 2010 | /s/  Vincent Sorgi |   |
|                            | Vincent SorgiVice President and ControllerPPL Electric Utilities Corporation |