alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John Martinez, Deceased, Respondent, v. Republic Steel Corp., Appellant, and Special Funds Conservation Committee, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

A self-insured employer appeals from awards of the Workmen’s Compensation Board for the funeral expenses of deceased and under sections 15 (subd. 9) and 25-a of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Claimant, long employed in various laboring capacities associated with iron ore mining and the manufacture of steel, contracted silicosis, an occupational disease, for disability arising from which he received awards from November 23, 1955 to August 29, 1958, the date of his death. A Referee found that his demise, whose direct cause was ascribed in the certificate of death to cancer of the lung with silicosis as an antecedent cause, was not causally related to the silicotic condition and disallowed the claim. Upon review the board in the interest of justice referred the claim to its chairman for the designation of an impartial specialist in diseases of the lung for an.opinion as to causal relationship. Doctor Schwartz was so designated and later reported and testified that in his opinion decedent died of cancer of the lung which was not causally related to the underlying silicosis. Upon the return of the ease for reconsideration, the decision of a majority of the board panel alluded to the testimony of the impartial specialist concerning the physically debilitating effect of silicosis in general and upon the cardiopulmonary organs in particular and the limitations which its presence imposed on the treatment of the carcinoma by X ray and surgery and found, as the predicate for the awards, that the pre-existing silicotic condition hastened decedent’s death from cancer of the lung. When read in its entirety we find nothing in Doctor Schwartz’ testimony which can be fairly said to be expressive of an opinion that the debilitation associated with silicosis influenced the progression of the malignancy. Nor is there medical opinion evidence that radiographic therapy or surgical intervention, even if advised, would have prolonged decedent’s life span. (Cf. *Matter of Lighter*v. *Freemam & Sons,*14 A D 2d 470; *Matter of Murray*v. *Direen Operating Co.,*15 A D 2d 851, mot. for lv. to app. den. 11 N Y 2d 644.) On this record we conclude that the board’s finding is not supported by substantial evidence. (See *Matter of Kornblum*v. *S. & S. Produce,*4 A D 2d 719.) Decision reversed *and*matter remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith, with costs against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.
2452.208-71 Reproduction of reports. As prescribed in 2408.802-70, insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts where the Contractor is required to produce, as an end product, publications or other written materials: REPRODUCTION OF REPORTS (APR 2019) In accordance with Title I of the Government Printing and Binding Regulations, printing of reports, data or other written material, if required herein, is authorized provided that the material produced does not exceed 5,000 production units of any page and that items consisting of multiple pages do not exceed 25,000 production units in aggregate. The aggregate number of production units is determined by multiplying the number of pages by the number of copies. A production unit is one sheet, size 8.5 by 11 inches or less, printed on one side only and in one color. All copy preparation to produce camera-ready copy for reproduction must be set by methods other than hot metal typesetting. The reports should be produced by methods employing stencils, masters and plates which are to be used on single unit duplicating equipment no larger than 11 by 17 inches with a maximum image of 103 ⁄ 4 by 141 ⁄ 4 inches and are prepared by methods or devices that do not utilize reusable contact negatives and/or positives prepared with a camera requiring a darkroom. All reproducibles (camera-ready copies for reproduction by photo offset methods) shall become the property of the Government and shall be delivered to the Government with the report, data, or other written materials.
(End of clause) [84 FR 15130, Apr. 15, 2019]
#### 232.410 Findings, determination, and authorization.

If an advance payment procedure is used without a special bank account, follow the procedures at PGI 232.410.

[70 FR 75413, Dec. 20, 2005]
1205.601 Governmentwide database of contracts. ( b ) The OA HCA is responsible for complying with the requirements of FAR 5.601(b).
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Theodore Kowalewski, Respondent, v. Blaw-Knox Company, Appellant-Respondent, and Special Funds Conservation Committee, Respondent-Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by the carrier and the Special Disability Fund from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board based on a finding that claimant is permanently and totally disabled as a result of a “silicosis condition superimposed on arteriosclerotic obliterans of the legs”. This claim was first filed in 1953. In 1954 based on a thorough medical examination the Referee found claimant had silicosis but that any disability therefrom was partial and the case was closed pending evidence of total disability (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 39). In 1959 the case was *725reopened. At a hearing held at the request of the carrier Dr. Brock, a member of the board of chest consultants who examined claimant, opined that while claimant was totally disabled the pulmonary condition caused by the silicosis was only a partial cause of disability and did not, in and of itself, cause total disability. He stated rather that it was claimant’s arteriosclerosis added to the pulmonary condition which created total disability. He further stated that there was no relationship between the pulmonary condition and the arteriosclerosis nor was the latter related to claimant’s employment. On the present state of the record the decision and award cannot be upheld. As stated the record clearly reveals that claimant’s disability, while total, is only partially due to silicosis and that claimant’s arteriosclerosis did not originate from his silicosis or as a result of his employment. Thus, as has been repeatedly held, unless the medical evidence demonstrates that the silicosis affected or contributed to the second affliction and the two conditions together result in total disability an award is not proper *(Matter of Dozier*v. *Republic Steel Corp.,*12 A D 2d 868, motion for leave to appeal denied 9 N Y 2d 611; *Matter of Muldoon*v. *Woods Co.,*8 A D 2d 888, motion for leave to appeal denied 7 N Y 2d 706; *Matter of Iodice*v. *General Abrasive Co.,*5 A D 2d 707; *Matter of Withers*v. *Du Pont de Nemours Co.,*266 App. Div. 928, motion for leave to appeal denied 292 N. Y. 727). In *Matter of Iodice*v. *General Abrasive Co. (supra,*p. 707) the applicable rule was clearly stated as follows: “ The fact that partially disabling silicosis happens to coincide with another condition which is totally disabling, does not give rise to a right to an award, if the silicosis does not contribute to the other condition.” The instant record is devoid of evidence on this factor. Decision and award reversed, with costs to appellant, and matter remitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Board for further proceedings. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30881 Summary Calendar

MARSHALL LEE RAWLINS, JR.; MARY E. RAWLINS; SHELIE D. TAPPIN; PENNY JOHNSON; DEMETRIUS DAVIS; CECIL JOE JENKINS; ANTIONA JENKINS; RANDY WALL; MARCIA WALL, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

ITT ENGINEERED VALVES, a Unit of ITT Fluid Technology Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana (92-CV-320 & 92-CV-363)

March 12, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DUHÉ and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *2



### Marshall Lee Rawlins, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, appeal an adverse

summary judgment in their claims against ITT Engineered Valves, a Unit of ITT

Fluid Technology Corporation. Having reviewed the record and briefs and finding

no reversible error, on the basis of the facts found, authori ties cited and analysis

made by the district court in its Memorandum Ruling and Order filed on July 31,

1996, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

August 20, 2020

v No. 346668

Macomb Circuit Court

JULIE ANN FLYNN, LC No. 2017-002784-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and SAWYER and BOONSTRA, JJ.

RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J. (concurring)

I reluctantly concur with the majority. I find it difficult to imagine a more clear-cut case 

of legal insanity, but this Court may not interfere with a jury’s verdict so long as there is evidence 

in the record to support it without resorting to speculation. People v Howard, 50 Mich 239, 242-

243; 15 NW 101 (1883); People v Bailey, 451 Mich 657, 673-675, 681-682; 549 NW2d 325 

(1996). The jury is simply not obligated to accept an expert’s testimony; even if, as was the case 

here, that testimony is unrebutted. Olson v Village of Manistique, 110 Mich 656, 657-659; 68 NW 

986 (1896); People v Gray, 57 Mich App 289, 296; 225 NW2d 733 (1975). Furthermore, this 

Court is bound to follow decisions from our Supreme Court. Pellegrino v AMPCO Sys Parking, 

486 Mich 330, 352-354; 785 NW2d 45 (2010).

I write separately because I am concerned that People v Carpenter, 464 Mich 223; 627 

NW2d 276 (2001), may no longer reflect a state-of-the-art understanding of mental illness or the 

devastating effect of imprisoning mentally ill individuals. I recognize that “insanity” is to some 

extent controlled by the Legislature. However, our Supreme Court relied in part on what was then 

regarded as a “moral judgment of the culpability of the accused.” Id. at 236-237. Subsequent 

scientific, medical, neurological, and psychological developments and discoveries have, over the 

past two decades, shed considerable new light on our ability to make truly objective determinations 

of individuals’ mental capabilities. In light of those advances, I question whether a “bright line 

test” can still be considered constitutional. This Court is powerless to address defendant’s 

argument that Carpenter infringes upon the rights of mentally ill individuals to present a 

meaningful defense consistent with up-to-date scientific and medical understandings of mental 
-2-

illness. However, I believe that, almost twenty years later, there may be merit to revisiting 

Carpenter. I respectfully urge our Supreme Court to do so.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7583
JOHN PAUL TURNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus A. LEE ERVIN, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-1026-R) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 18, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v. Ervin , No. CA-95-1026-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 20 and 28, 1995).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 decisional process. Appellant's motion to consolidate cases is denied.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 23(a)



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We  hereby  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration  Statements of Pharmos  Corporation (Forms
S-3 Nos. 33-68762, 33-74638, 33-86720, 33-91918, 33-93466, 33-64289,  333-47359,
333-80813 and Forms S-8 Nos. 333-38373 and 333-96435) of Pharmos  Corporation of
our report dated March 5, 2000 appearing on page F-2 of this Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
March 30, 2000
#### 251.107 Contract clause.

Use the clause at 252.251-7000, Ordering From Government Supply Sources, in solicitations and contracts which include the clause at FAR 52.251-1, Government Supply Sources.
217.7001 Definitions. As used in this subpart— ( a ) *Exchange (trade-in) property* means property which— ( 1 ) Is not excess but is eligible for replacement (because of obsolescence, unserviceability, or other reason); and
( 2 ) Is applied as whole or partial payment toward the acquisition of similar items (i.e., items designed and constructed for the same purpose).
( b ) *Property* means items that fall within one of the generic categories listed in DoD Manual 4140.01, Volume 9, DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Procedures: Materiel Programs.
[56 FR 36345, July 31, 1991, as amended at 65 FR 39705, June 27, 2000; 77 FR 23631, Apr. 20, 2012; 82 FR 61480, Dec. 28, 2017]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41069

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JHONY BARRIOS-ANDRADE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CR-314

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jhony Barrios-Andrade (Barrios)

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Barrios has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently 

developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Barrios’s claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 26, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41069 Document: 00513397940 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2016
No. 15-41069

2

prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 

(5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Barrios’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Barrios’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is 

DENIED.

 Case: 15-41069 Document: 00513397940 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2016
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 169 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 169

  Congratulating Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory on 50 years of 
                      groundbreaking discoveries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 17, 2017

  Ms. Duckworth (for herself and Mr. Durbin) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Congratulating Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory on 50 years of 
                      groundbreaking discoveries.

Whereas, in 2017, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (referred to in this 
        preamble as ``Fermilab'') celebrates the 50th anniversary of the date on 
        which the first employees of Fermilab started work in Illinois, June 15, 
        1967;
Whereas Fermilab drives scientific discovery by building and operating world-
        leading particle accelerator and detector facilities, performing 
        pioneering research with national and global partners, and developing 
        new technologies for science that support the industrial competitiveness 
        of the United States;
Whereas Fermilab provides research facilities for 4,500 scientists from 50 
        countries;
Whereas research at Fermilab led to the discovery of the 3 building blocks of 
        the universe, the bottom quark in 1977, the top quark in 1995, and the 
        tau neutrino in 2000;
Whereas superconducting magnets developed at Fermilab led to the advancement of 
        magnetic resonance imaging medical diagnostics;
Whereas Fermilab contributed critical components, computing capabilities, and 
        scientific expertise to the 2012 discovery of the Higgs boson in Geneva, 
        Switzerland;
Whereas Fermilab continues to lead scientific discoveries, including planning 
        construction for the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility to power the Deep 
        Underground Neutrino Experiment; and
Whereas Fermilab demonstrates its strong commitment to developing a diverse 
        workforce for the future in the fields of science, technology, 
        engineering, and mathematics through educational programs that bring 
        more than 15,000 K-12 students to visit Fermilab each year: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) congratulates the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 
        on the semicentennial of the Laboratory; and
            (2) wishes the Laboratory success in continuing to help the 
        people of the United States understand the mysteries of matter, 
        energy, space, and time.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Kevin J. Reinhart, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Nexen
Inc., a Canadian  Corporation  (the  "Company")  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350 as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

(1)  the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly  period
     ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission
     on the date hereof (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of
     Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: April 30, 2010
                                            /S/ KEVIN J. REINHART
                                          -------------------------------------
                                                   Kevin J. Reinhart
                                                 Senior Vice President
                                               and Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nexen Inc. and shall be retained by Nexen Inc. and  furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ralph Freccia, Appellant.

Judgment of resentence unanimously vacated and matter remitted to Cayuga Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: Heretofore we vacated judgment of resentence and stated that appellant had the right prior to such resentence to move to vacate his prior guilty plea. (16 A D 2d 885.) Thereafter and prior to the matter coming on to be heard anew, appellant filed and served a voluminous affidavit setting forth his grounds for seeking leave to withdraw his guilty plea and his reasons for requesting a hearing prior to the court ruling on the motion. When appellant was brought into court he restated all of this and named certain witnesses he desired to have subpoenaed. He was denied a hearing and the motion to withdraw the plea was summarily denied. This was error. *(People*v. *Eckert,*14 A D 2d 988.) Appellant is entitled to a hearing at which he is entitled to counsel, if requested by him. After such hearing the motion to withdraw the former plea should be decided in the light of the testimony and other proof adduced at the hearing. In this proceeding to resentence after the original sentence had been vacated the issues are not *res judicata*by reason of prior proceedings for *coram nobis*relief. Appellant stands before the court as one who had never been sentenced at all for the substantive felony to which he had pleaded guilty. (Cf. *People*v. MacKenna, 298 N. Y. 494, 498.) (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Supreme Court resentencing defendant for murder, second degree, to 30 years to life.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
June 27, 2011 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Horizon Air Industries, Inc. petitions the FAA for an exemption to 14 CFR 121.434(c)(1)(ii) to substitute 

a qualified and authorized check airman for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command 

(PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg 

that includes a takeoff and a landing. 

Horizon Air requests this relief due to a shortage of local FAA inspectors available to conduct the 

required observations. 

Horizon Air believes that granting relief is in the public’s best interest by preventing schedule disruptions 

that may result from a shortage of qualified flight crewmembers and avoiding public expenses 

associated with bringing in FAA Inspectors from outside the region to conduct the observations. 

Horizon Air maintains a staff of experienced and qualified check airman dedicated to ensuring safety, 

standardization, and professionalism within the pilot ranks. Horizon Air Check Airmen are experienced 

observers and will ensure a level of safety that meets or exceeds the requirements of 14 CFR 121.434. 

Sincerely, 

Kenith Heninger 

Director of Operations 

Horizon Air 8070 NE Airtrans Way 

Portland, OR 97218