alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Borden Institute Home

About the Textbooks

Published Volumes

Ordering Information

Author Information

Related Websites

Contact Information

Search

Published Volumes

# Medical Aspects of Harsh Environments, Volume 2 

### Contents 

#### Front Matter 

#### Section III: Mountain Environments 

    - Mountains and Military Medicine: An Overview
    - Selected Military Operations in Mountain Environments:Some Medical Aspects
    - Human Adaptation to High Terrestrial Altitude
    - Physical Performance at Varying Terrestrial Altitudes
    - Cognitive Performance, Mood, and Neurological Status at High Terrestrial Elevation
    - Acute Mountain Sickness and High-Altitude Cerebral Edema
    - High-Altitude Pulmonary Edema
    - Additional Medical Problems in Mountain Environments
    - Military Medical Operations in Mountain Environments

#### Section IV: Special Environments

    - Introduction to Special Environments
    - Shipboard Medicine
    - Physics, Physiology, and Medicine of Diving
    - Military Diving Operations and Medical Support 
    - Pressure Changes and Hypoxia in Aviation
    - Acceleration Effects on Fighter Pilots
    - Military Spaceflight 
    - Motion Sickness
    - Protective Uniforms for Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare: Metabolic, Thermal, Respiratory, and Psychological Issues
    - Medical Support of Special Operations
    - Organizational, Psychological, and Training Aspects of Special Operations Forces

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Index

 

Download Adobe Reader to view PDF documents.

External Links DisclaimerPrivacy & Security Notice
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Kettles, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 435]—

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank E Geraci, Jr., A.J.), entered August 11, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.).*Defendant was presumptively classified at that risk level based upon the total risk factor score on the risk assessment instrument *(see generally People v Brown,*302 AD2d 919, 920 [2003]). Supreme Court concluded, however, that defendant was improperly assessed 10 points under the risk factor based upon the recency of a prior felony, and the subtraction of those points reduced his total risk factor score to 105. Although that total risk factor score *1271presumptively classified defendant as a level two risk, the court concluded that an upward departure was warranted. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court’s determination is supported by clear and convincing evidence. The court properly concluded that the total risk factor score did not adequately take into account defendant’s prior criminal history, particularly defendant’s repeated violations of probation *(see People v Thomas,*307 AD2d 759, 760 [2003]; *see generally People v Goodwin,*35 AD3d 1285, 1285-1286 [2006]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Green and Pine, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1





CHASE GENERAL CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



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 Chase General Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2018 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Barry M. Yantis, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition, and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|February 14, 2019 | /s/ Barry M. Yantis                               
|----------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|Date              | Barry M. Yantis                                   
|                  | Chairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer and
|                  | Chief Financial Officer,
President, and Treasurer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric S. Peterson, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered February 10, 1978, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Since the Court of *939Appeals has indicated that grand larceny, wherein proof is required that the items taken exceed a certain value, is not a lesser included offense of robbery in the first degree (as opposed to grand larceny by taking "from the person of another” [Penal Law, § 155.30, subd 5]), no error was committed in failing to dismiss the grand larceny conviction (see *People v Acevedo,*40 NY2d 701, 707; see, also, *People v Bowden,*56 AD2d 578). The evidence of guilt was overwhelming. We have considered the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Suozzi, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
#### 2101.103 Applicability.

The FAR is generally applicable to contracts negotiated in the FEGLI Program pursuant to 5 U.S.C. chapter 87. The LIFAR implements and supplements the FAR where necessary to identify basic and significant acquisition policies unique to the FEGLI Program.
#### 18.120 [Reserved]
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(a)

                              CONSENT OF AUDITORS
<PAGE>



                        Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Auditors"
in the Statement of Additional Information and to the use of our reports (1)
dated January 28, 2000 with respect to the financial statements of certain
subaccounts of PFL Retirement Builder Variable Annuity Account, which are
available for investment by contract owners of PFL Immediate Income Builder, and
(2) dated February 18, 2000 with respect to the statutory-basis financial
statements and schedules of PFL Life Insurance Company, included in Post-
Effective Amendment No. 6 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-61063)
and related Prospectus of PFL Immediate Income Builder.


                                             /s/  Ernst & Young, LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
April 24, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          43,000
<SECURITIES>                                   200,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  264,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     43,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               627,000
<PP&E>                                       3,896,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,237,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,063,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          580,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,046,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,063,000
<SALES>                                        358,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               359,000
<CGS>                                          440,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  520,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (238,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (238,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (238,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)


</TABLE>
#### Rachel Anderson v. Manhattan Opera House Holding Corp.

Motion for consolidation granted insofar as to allow appellant to have the appeals heard in one appeal book, without duplication of printing. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
#### (A) In the Matter of the Claim of Walter Dmytreshin, Respondent. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Appellant. (B) In the Matter of the Claim of Dorothy Livermore, Respondent, v. Planet Corporation et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (C) In the Matter of the Claim of Harry Trudeau, Appellant, v. Colonial Sand and Stone Co., Inc., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

[In each action] Motion for reargument, or in the alternative, for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, without costs.
<PAGE>   1





                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8, Nos. 2-92671, 33-5142, 33-47589, 33-47588 and 333-02435) pertaining
to the Stock Option and Purchase Plans of Galileo Corporation of our report 
dated October 22, 1996, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Galileo Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended September 30, 1996.





Providence, Rhode Island                                     ERNST & YOUNG LLP
December 16, 1996








                                     PAGE 38
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 CR 50027 - 1 DATE 4/18/2012

CASE

TITLE

USA vs. RITA CRUNDWELL

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Detention hearing held. Enter order setting conditions of release. Defendant waives right to a preliminary

hearing. Court enters finding of probable cause. Status hearing set for May 7, 2012 at 10:30 am. 

Docketing to mail notices.

00:15

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

GG

12CR50027 - 1 USA vs. RITA CRUNDWELL Page 1 of 1

Case: 3:12-cr-50027 Document #: 10 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:24
#### E. F. W. Wildermuth, Respondent, v. Edward Pious, as Receiver of Robert L. Bradford and Others, Appellant, and Chase Manhattan Bank Respondent.

In a proceeding by a judgment creditor under articles 51 and 52 of the CPLR, to enforce collection of a money judgment against judgment debtors (Robert L. Bradford, Bradford Audio Corporation and others), Edward Pious, as the receiver appointed in an action in the Supreme Court, New York County, under the Martin Act (General Business Law, art. 23-A, § 352 *et seq.),*appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 20,1964, which: (1) denied his motion, pursuant to CPLR 404, to dismiss the petition as insufficient in law; (2) granted summary judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to CPLR 409, in favor of the petitioner; (3) *913directed that said receiver Pious pay the sum of $60,000 (plus accrued interest thereon), in his possession and belonging to the judgment debtors or one of them, to Stephen J. Masse, as receiver in supplementary proceedings, to be applied in partial satisfaction of petitioner’s judgment; (4) directed that the Chase Manhattan Bank pay the United States Treasury bills in excess of $10,000 (together with interest thereon), in its possession and belonging to the judgment debtors or one of them, to said Stephen J. Masse to be applied in partial satisfaction of petitioner’s judgment; and (5) directed that the issue with respect to the bank’s indebtedness of $81,000 to the judgment debtors be severed and referred to a Special Referee to hear and report. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs; motion to dismiss the petition granted; and petition dismissed, with costs to the receiver Edward Pious. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, the motion of the receiver Pious to dismiss the petition should have been granted. He was appointed receiver by the Supreme Court, New York County, in an action under the Martin Act (General Business Law, § 353-a); and the funds in his possession and the United States Treasury bills in the bank’s possession, belonging to the judgment debtors or any of them, are *in custodia legis.*There is neither allegation nor proof that petitioner obtained the leave of that court to institute this proceeding. In the absence of such permission to sue, the Supreme Court in Queens County lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition in this proceeding *(Barton*v. *Barbour,*104 U. S. 126; *Matter of Schuyler’s Steam Tow Boat Co.,*136 N. Y. 169; *Matter of Christian Jensen Co.,*128 N. Y. 550; *Town of Greenburgh*v. *Shalleck,*247 App. Div. 813; *Matter of Frankie,*241 App. Div. 767; *Matter of New York Municipal Ry. Corp.*v. *Holliday,*189 App. Div. 814, affd. 228 N. Y. 561). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 1819.001 Definitions.

*High-Tech* as used in this part means research and/or development efforts that are within or advance the state-of-the-art in a technology discipline and are performed primarily by professional engineers, scientists, and highly skilled and trained technicians or specialists.
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

Fr iday, February 6, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00055

- CR

Kevin ODELL

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR5506

Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

A Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal has been filed in this appeal

in which the trial court judge certifies that the underlying criminal case “is a plea

- bargain case,

and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” It is therefore ORDERED that the trial court clerk

file an electronic clerk’s record within ten days from the date of this order containing the

following documents:

1. All pre

- trial orders and the related pre

- trial motions;

2. The Court Ad monishments, the Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of Testimony and

Stipulations, and all other documents relating to the defendant’s plea bargain;

3. The judgment;

4. All post

- judgment motions and orders;

5. The notice of appeal;

6. The Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal; and

7. The criminal docket sheet.All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court. The clerk of this

court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record , the trial court clerk,

and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of February, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sidney Lipsitz et al., Appellants.

Motion granted and time for argument of appeal enlarged to include March 1961 Term on condition that appellants’ brief is filed and served on or before February 20, 1961. Respondent directed to file on or before March 16, 1961. Order of substitution of attorneys entered.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00019-CV

Ralph Dreyer, Appellant

v.

Delores Smith, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

NO. 03P219-L, HONORABLE BEN NOLEN, JUDGE PRESIDING 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Ralph Dreyer no longer wishes to pursue his appeal and has filed a

motion to dismiss that appellee Delores Smith does not oppose. We grant the motion and dismiss

the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: November 14, 2008
EXHIBIT
32.1


Statmon
Technologies Corp.




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


19 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the annual report of Statmon Technologies Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Geoffrey Talbot, Chief 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 to the best of my knowledge:




(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/ Geoffrey
      P. TalbotGeoffrey
      P. TalbotChief
      Executive OfficerJuly
      14, 2010




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be
retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0000106 26-SEP-2014 08:24 AM
Case: 1:12-cv-02609 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:264
Case: 1:12-cv-02609 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:265
Case: 1:12-cv-02609 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:266
Case: 1:12-cv-02609 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:267
Case: 1:12-cv-02609 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:268
Case: 1:12-cv-02609 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:269
Case: 1:12-cv-02609 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:270
Case: 1:12-cv-02609 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:271
Case: 1:12-cv-02609 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:272
Author: SAIC and TetraTech

Date Created: Received from SAIC on 1/20/2011.

Date Modified: 3/31/2011

Purpose: This file contains new capacity estimates and cost equations to estimate costs associated with this new capacity.

File Contents:

Worksheet Contents

Notes Contains information about the file.

Capacity Allocation Contains new capacity estimates.

Cost Equations Contains cost equations.

Input Files:

External data used in calculations/analysis:

New Unit & Repowering Costs 1-19-11xlsx.xlsx (not linked)

FileInfo 1 of 4
New Unit Costs for Repowering and New Added Units

Costs and Generating Output Reduction Equation Units

Coal (42%

Efficient)

Combined

Cycle ( 57%

Efficient)

Nuclear

(33.5%

Efficient)

GPM/MW 390 200 680

Capital Cost - Repowering (CC) CC = MWS x Constant Dollars $60,060 $30,800 $104,720

Capital Cost - New Unit with New Intake (CC) CC = MWS x Constant Dollars $0 $0 $0

Fixed O&M Cost (OMF) OMF = MWS x Constant Dollars $366 $188 $639

Variable O&M - Chemicals (OMC) OMC= MWS x Constant Dollars $151 $77 $262

Variable O&M - Pump & Fan Power (OMV) OMV= MWS x Constant MW 0.0077 0.0040 0.0134

Energy Penalty -Heat Rate (EP) Non-nuclear EP=MWS x Constant MW 0 0 0

Energy Penalty -Heat Rate (EP) Nuclear EP=MWS x Constant MW 0 0 0

Repowering assumes unit generation is sized such that existing intake can be used for once-through in baseline

Coal efficiency is based on average of super-critical and unltra-critical coal.

Items highlighted are revised from 1-19-11 version

Cost Equations 2 of 4
Coal

Combined

Cycle Nuclear*

Non-Phase I Phase

Factor 30% 30% NA Multiply this factor times new capacity to get capacity subject to new unit designation

Non-Phase I

Baseline NonCompliance Factor 50% 50% 50% Multiply this factor times new capacity subject to new unit designation to get capacity that will have compliance costs

Repowering Factor 10% 85% 100% Assumed percentage of capacity with compliance costs that get repowering capital costs

* Nuclear Extended

Uprate capacity will

be

Example Capacity Calculations

Plant type

Projected

New/

Repowered

Capacity Non-Phase I

Total Noncompliant

New

Capacity

Total Noncompliant

Repowered

Capacity

Total Noncompliant

Added Unit

Capacity

MW MW MW MW MW

Annual Average Coal 3573 1072 536 54 482

Annual Average Combined Cycle1491 447 224 190 34

Annual Average Nuclear 1938 1938 969 969 0

Nuclear Extended Uprates

Using summer capacity data at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/operation/statoperation.html

The average nuclear generating unit has a capacity = 969 MW/Unit

Assume extended uprates/yr based on EIA projections = 2 Units

A review of CWS type and capacity data in Master shows OT = 52%

CCRS = 37%

Combination = 9%

Other = 2%

Use 50% as a conservative estimate of existing Non-CCRS capacity

Capacity Allocation 3 of 4
Final

Created by SAIC 1-20-11

Includes revisions to capital costs presented in the fraft version dated 1-19-11

Capital cost estimates for added units = $0 is based on cases where a new intake is required to meet added flow requirement

Analysis showed that costs for new intake costs are comparable to cooling towers.

Notes 4 of 4
#### 208.7101 Policy.

Departments and agencies shall cooperate fully with NASA in making acquisition services, equipment, personnel, and facilities available on the basis of mutual agreement.

[71 FR 39005, July 11, 2006]
#### 1828.311-2 Agency solicitation provisions and contract clauses.