alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Flora Duncan et al., Appellants, v. Trans-World Airlines, Inc., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Claimants appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which denied claimants (father and mother of a deceased employee) compensation on the grounds that they were not dependent upon him. The only proof of dependency in the record is the testimony of claimants, father and mother, that decedent made certain contributions to them. There is no supporting documentary or other evidence. The board overruled a Referee’s decision and stated in its memoranda of decision: “ The Board finds on credible evidence that it does not believe the testimony of the deceased’s parents that the deceased actually made the contributions, as alleged. The Board finds on the evidence that the deceased did not help maintain and support the mother and that the mother was not dependent on the deceased at the time of the accident.” Appellants argue that the board cannot overrule a Referee on credibility. Such is not the case, and we have held many times that the credibility of witnesses is solely within the province of the board, even as recently as April 4, 1963 in *Matter of Scarpullo*v. *Alba Barber Shop*(18 A D 2d 1122). Moreover, the testimony of the father and mother was vague and general, and there is evidence pertaining to the family financial situation which would strongly tend to support the board’s factual determina*667tian that there was no dependency. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ.
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 101 Filed: 08/01/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:841
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 14 (Monday, January 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 6894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01450]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Conference Grant Review.
    Date: February 12, 2021.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1076, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Carol Lambert, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing 
Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Room 1076, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0814, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f19d909c93948385b19c90989ddf9f9899df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c0aca1ada2a5b2b480ada1a9aceeaea9a8eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 15, 2021.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-01450 Filed 1-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2016

- 3990 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 153

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

c ost

(@$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### AFM Amendment 1.0 $ 85.00 

### 0 $ 85.00 

### 230 $ 19,550.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 19,550



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@ $85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Anal ysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant r egulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Exp lanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
225.7703-2 Determination requirements. Before use of a procedure specified in 225.7703-1(a), a written determination must be prepared and executed as follows: ( a ) For products or services to be used only by the military forces, police, or other security personnel of Afghanistan, the contracting officer shall— ( 1 ) Determine in writing that the product or service is to be used only by the military forces, police, or other security personnel of Afghanistan; and
( 2 ) Include the written determination in the contract file.
( b ) For products or services not limited to use by the military forces, police, or other security personnel of Afghanistan, the following requirements apply: ( 1 ) The appropriate official specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this subsection must determine in writing that it is in the national security interest of the United States to use a procedure specified in 225.7703-1(a), because— ( i ) The procedure is necessary to provide a stable source of jobs in Afghanistan; and
( ii ) Use of the procedure will not adversely affect— ( A ) Operations in Afghanistan (including security, transition, reconstruction, and humanitarian relief activities); or
( B ) The U.S. industrial base. The authorizing official generally may presume that there will not be an adverse effect on the U.S. industrial base. However, when in doubt, the authorizing official should coordinate with the applicable subject matter expert specified in PGI 225.7703-2(b).
( 2 ) Determinations may be made for an individual acquisition or a class of acquisitions meeting the criteria in paragraph (b)(1) of this subsection as follows: ( i ) The head of the contacting activity is authorized to make a determination that applies to an individual acquisition with a value of less than $100 million.
( ii ) The Principal Director, Defense Pricing, Contracting, and Acquisition Policy, and the following officials, without power of redelegation, are authorized to make a determination that applies to an individual acquisition with a value of $100 million or more or to a class of acquisitions: ( A ) Defense Logistics Agency Component Acquisition Executive.
( B ) Army Acquisition Executive.
( C ) Navy Acquisition Executive.
( D ) Air Force Acquisition Executive.
( E ) Commander of the United States Central Command Joint Theater Support Contracting Command (C-JTSCC).
( 3 ) The contracting officer— ( i ) Shall include the applicable written determination in the contract file; and
( ii ) Shall ensure that each contract action taken pursuant to the authority of a class determination is within the scope of the class determination, and shall document the contract file for each action accordingly.
( c ) See PGI 225.7703-2(c) for formats for use in preparation of the determinations required by this subsection.
[73 FR 53153, Sept. 15, 2008, as amended at 75 FR 18039, Apr. 8, 2010; 75 FR 45074, Aug. 2, 2010; 78 FR 59858, Sept. 30, 2013; 80 FR 36905, June 26, 2015; 85 FR 61504, Sept. 29, 2020; 89 FR 60831, July 29, 2024]
#### 225.772-0 Scope.

This section implements 10 U.S.C. 2279.

[79 FR 45664, Aug. 5, 2014]
#### 1631.205 Selected costs.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Joseph Corbo.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before September 11, 1962, with notice of argument for the October 1962 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### Wolverine Winter-Seal Corp., Respondent, v. Way Jewelers, Inc., Appellant, and Harvey M. Berg, Defendant.

Motion granted and time for argument of appeal extended to include January 1961 Term of court on condition that appellant’s brief is filed and served on or before January 18,1961. Respondent’s brief must be filed and served on or before February 2,1961 if appeal is to be argued at February 1961 Term.
#### 215.101-2 Lowest price technically acceptable source selection process.

[84 FR 50788, Sept. 26, 2019]
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.1




                                PhotoMedex, Inc.
                    Five Radnor Corporate Center, Suite 470
                           Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087
                                 (610) 971-9292



                                 April 1, 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549



         Re: Letter Re Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X
             ----------------------------------------------------------


Dear Sir or Madam:


         In accordance with Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, we
are writing to inform you that Arthur Andersen LLP ("andersen") has represented
to us that Andersen's audit of the consolidated financial statements of
PhotoMedex, Inc. and its subsidiaries, as of December 31, 2001, and for the year
then ended, was subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S.
accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards and that
there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit and
availability of national office consultation. Availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Andersen was not relevant to the audit.


                                             Sincerely,


                                             PHOTOMEDEX, INC.


                                             By: /s/ Dennis M. McGrath
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Dennis M. McGrath
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
### Docket Number: FAA**- 2014**  **- 0120** 

**Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? Organization Person Contacted Date Response Transport Canada Yosha Mendis

(613) 952 - 4388 03/05/13 No Objections Bom bardier Aerospace Catherine Auger

(514) 855 - 5001 X 61571 03/05/13 No Objections Regional Airline Association N/A N/A N/A
#### In the Matter of the Attorney-General *v.*The Continental Life Insurance Company. Claim of Administrator of Morgan A. Dayton, deceased.

(Argued June 5, 1883;

decided June 12, 1883.)

*F. L. Westbrook*for appellant.

*John C. Keeler*for Attorney-General.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
Devany, Dennis COSn 

From: gump [gump@primelink1.net] 


Sent: VV~dnesday; February 17, 2010 8:21 PM 


rot . Devany, Dennis .(OST) . 


Cc: Swanson, Brian (OST) 


Subject: Cape Air Decision 


Dear Sir, I reside in Clinton County near Plattsburgh, NY and would like to urge you to keep the current essential air 


service provider (Cape Air) at the Plattsburgh International Airport. 


I don't feel it it prudent to change to a larger aircraft and pay more money per flight when the current carrier's flights are 


not filled to capacity now. . . . 


Cape Air has been a loyal and reliable provider and has helped Plattsburgh International Airport grow at a steady pace. 


The switch to another carrier at this time would be a disservice to Cape Air and all they have done for our airport. To roll 


the dice in hopes of filling the larger aircraft would be a mistake, in my opinion, and a risk for every taxpayer of Clinton 


County and anyone who uses this carrier. 


Please consider not accepting the Clinton County Legislature's recommendation to change carriers from Cape Air to 


Colgan Air. 


Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 


Kevin & Darlene Gero 

1
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Thomas Devine, Respondent, v New York State Board of Parole et al., Appellants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on or about August 24, 1978, sustaining a writ of habeas corpus, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the writ dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Thomas Devine, while on parole, was arrested and subsequently indicted for the crimes of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon. On May 31, 1978, a hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence (a gun) and statements of the defendant Devine was held before Justice Richard Lane, and the motion was granted. On July 21, 1978, a preliminary parole-violation proceeding was held at which the only evidence adduced was the gun directed to be suppressed by Justice Richard Lane. The relator, Devine, objected to the introduction of that evidence. On the basis of that evidence, Devine was held for a further hearing. Devine applied for relief in Supreme Court, and on August 24, 1978 Justice Cohen sustained relator’s writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the suppressed evidence inadmissible at a criminal trial was equally inadmissible at a parole-revocation hearing. We would reverse and dismiss the writ. On January 6, 1979, this court reversed the order of Justice Richard Lane and denied Devine’s motion to suppress evidence *(People v Devine,*66 AD2d 244). Since this removed the only objection to the introduction of the evidence adduced at the preliminary parole-revocation proceeding, no basis for sustaining the writ exists and it must be dismissed. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Lane and Bloom, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM MESA OFFSHORE TRUST AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       2,015,016
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,275
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,036,291
<PP&E>                                     380,905,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             379,837,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,103,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,291
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,067,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,103,451
<SALES>                                      3,139,620
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,231,408
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               427,546
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,803,862
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,803,862
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .039
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .039

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 37 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 37

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy 
    relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for 
                             Compressors''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 2017

  Mr. Cruz introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy 
    relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for 
                             Compressors''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to ``Energy 
Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Compressors'' (82 Fed. Reg. 
1052 (January 4, 2017)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.29



NETRADIO NETWORK

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SUMMARY

Nancy Kielty

Start Date 2/17/99



	•	 	Starting base salary: $108,000 per year. Performance appraisal within six
months in position. Performance and salary reviewed on your anniversary
date thereafter.
	 
	•	 	Bonus: You have the opportunity to earn up to 25% of your base salary. This
bonus is based on the company achieving its financial objectives and you
achieving mutually agreed upon personal goals. The bonus period runs from
January 1 through December 31 and is paid 45 days after the fiscal year-end
audit pro-rated for this fiscal year.
	 
	•	 	Stock Option — You will receive a grant of pre-I.P.O. stock options for
50,000 shares of NetRadio Common Stock which vests over a three year period
at 33 1/3% per year. This option price will be approximately $5.00 per
share and will vest 100% if employee is terminated without cause.
	 
	•	 	Employee medical insurance core plan through Medica with co-pays of $15.00
per office visit, $11.00 for pharmacy, and $50.00 for emergency room.
Hospitalization is covered at 80% of the first $750.00; 100% thereafter.
(Dependent coverage is available at employee’s expense.)




	 	 	 	NetRadio pays for 80% of the employee’s cost of medical insurance. The
employee’s contribution for coverage cost per pay period is:
Single-$13.49, Employee plus One-$103.38 and Family-$152.42. (A broader
medical plan is also available with a slight increase to the employee.)




	•	 	Company-paid employee dental insurance through Delta Dental, covering two
free cleanings per year and 80/20 payment for routine work. (Dependent
coverage is available at employee’s expense.)
	 
	•	 	Company-paid life insurance at 1 times salary (up to $50,000).
	 
	•	 	Company-paid short-term and long-term disability insurance.
	 
	•	 	401(k) plan program eligibility after six months of employment with April 1
and October 1 entry dates.
	 
	•	 	Tuition reimbursement up to $500/semester or quarter, paid based on grade
point.
	 
	•	 	Two weeks of vacation after one year; three weeks vacation after five
years, and 4 weeks after ten years.
	 
	•	 	Sick leave of six days annually. (Accrued at 1/2 day per month).
	 
	•	 	Nine paid holidays per year.
	 
	•	 	Underground parking in the Riverplace parking ramp will be paid for you by
NetRadio.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alvin Butler, Also Known as Alvin Hill, Also Known as James Hill, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered August 3, 1977, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. Improper and inflammatory remarks in the prosecutor’s summation, errors in the court’s charge and improper evidentiary rulings require reversal. It was error for the prosecutor to (1) dwell extensively upon the failure of an alibi witness to promptly report her evidence to either the police or the District Attorney since she has no such obligation (see *People v Smoot,*59 AD2d 898); (2) denigrate his adversary’s personal attributes; (3) vouch for his own case; and (4) make an emotional appeal to the jury. The court was equally remiss in charging that the defendant must prove the truth of his alibi defense, omitting the burden of proof in this regard, and using the term "evenly balanced” scales. The court’s charge as to the presumption of innocence was similarly weak. In addition, the court improperly denied the request of defense counsel to have a diagram (drawn to scale) and photographs admitted into evidence. The objection of the prosecutor had no foundation in law and the court’s comment, in the presence of the jury, about distortion and failure to "convey the true picture”, was utilized by the prosecutor in summation in his argument that the defense was attempting to fool the jury. In sum, defendant was deprived of a fair trial. Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Shapiro and Martuscello, JJ., concur.