alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 201.45 Obtaining the working sample. ( a ) The working sample on which the actual analysis is made shall be taken from the submitted sample in such a manner that it will be representative.
( b ) The sample shall be repeatedly divided to the weight to be used for the working sample. Some form of efficient mechanical divider should be used. To avoid damaging large seeds and coated seeds, a divider should be used which will prevent the seeds from falling great distances onto hard surfaces. In case the proper mechanical divider cannot be used or is not available, the sample shall be thoroughly mixed and placed in a pile and the pile shall be repeatedly divided into halves until a sample of the desired weight remains.
[5 FR 32, Jan. 4, 1940, as amended at 20 FR 7929, Oct. 21, 1955; 25 FR 8769, Sept. 13, 1960; 59 FR 64492, Dec. 14, 1994]
§ 1970.153 Notice of Intent and scoping. ( a ) *Notice of Intent.* The Agency will publish a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register that an EIS will be prepared and, if public scoping meetings are required, the notice will be published at least 14 days prior to the public scoping meeting(s). ( 1 ) The NOI will include a description of the following: the applicant's proposal and possible alternatives; the Agency's scoping process including plans for possible public scoping meetings with time and locations; background information if available; and contact information for Agency staff who can answer questions regarding the proposal and the EIS.
( 2 ) The applicant must publish a notice similar to the NOI, as directed and approved by the Agency, in one or more newspapers of local circulation, or provide similar information through other distribution methods as approved by the Agency. If public scoping meetings are required, such notices must be published at least 14 days prior to each public scoping meeting.
( b ) *Scoping.* In addition to the Agency and applicant responsibilities for public involvement identified in § 1970.14 and as part of early planning for the proposal, the Agency and the applicant must invite affected Federal, state, and local agencies and tribes to inform them of the proposal and identify the permits and approvals that must be obtained and the administrative procedures that must be followed.
( c ) *Significant issues.* For each scoping meeting held, the Agency will determine, as soon as practicable after the meeting, the significant issues to be analyzed in depth and identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues that are not significant, have been covered by prior environmental review, or are not determined to be reasonable alternatives.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 12a1149n.06

No. 12-5279

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

RICKY L. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ARAMARK; COOKIE CREWS, Warden;

JANE AND JOHN DOES; KSR OFFICIALS;

ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,

LLC; MARK GEDDES; BONNIE RESNIC,

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF

KENTUCKY

Before: MARTIN and WHITE, Circuit Judges; ECONOMUS, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. Ricky L. Johnson, a Kentucky prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district

court’s order dismissing his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Johnson also has

filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. 

Johnson is incarcerated at the Kentucky State Reformatory. In October 2011, he filed an

amended complaint against Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Aramark’s Regional Manager

Mark Geddes, Aramark Supervisor Bonnie Resnic, and ReformatoryWarden Cookie Crews. In his

complaint, Johnson alleged that he suffered injuries while working in the prison’s food service

department, which is managed by Aramark. He alleged violations of § 1983; the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

(RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. The district court dismissed Johnson’s action for failure to state

a claim.

The Honorable Peter C. Economus, United States Senior District Judge for the Northern

*

District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
No. 12-5279

- 2 -

The district court’s orderis reviewed de novo. Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 571–72 (6th

Cir. 2008). 

Johnson does not raise his ADA and RFRA claims on appeal. Nor does he argue that the

district court erred in dismissing his claims against Aramark, Geddes, and Resnic. Therefore, these

claims are deemed waived. See Turner v. City of Taylor, 412 F.3d 629, 639 (6th Cir. 2005). In

addition, Johnson is not permitted to add new defendants and claims on appeal. See Foster v.

Barilow, 6 F.3d 405, 407 (6th Cir. 1993).

Johnson argues that he stated a claim against Crews. But his primary argument against

Crews is that she failed to respond to his grievances, and the denial of a grievance or the failure to

act upon the filing of a grievance is insufficient to establish liability under § 1983. See Shehee v.

Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999). To the extent that Johnson argues that Crews is liable

for the alleged unconstitutional acts of other officers, “§ 1983 liability must be based on more than

respondeat superior, or the right to control employees.” Id. Accordingly, the district court properly

dismissed the claims asserted against Crews.

The motion for appointment of counsel is denied and the district court’s order is affirmed.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-09-14T18:56:54Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-09-14T18:56:55Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-09-14T18:56:55Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="12688">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-09-14T18:56:54Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>OPINION Iy 
O-7416 WAS NEVER ISSUED OK 
</p>
<p>WAS WITHDRAWN. </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>
MEDIATION REFERRALS

2006-0884.

#### St. Bernard Self-Storage, L.L.C. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2003-T-1532.

The following cases have been referred to mediation pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(6):
#### The State ex rel. Wanzer, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Wanzer v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 391.]

(No. 97-2232

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*Shapiro, Kendis & Associates Co., L.P.A.,*and *Rachel B. Jaffy,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,

dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and return the cause to the Industrial Commission pursuant to *State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm.*(1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245.

Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
#### § 1781.10 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1955

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1955.108 Sale of (CONACT) property other than FSA property.

Program officials will immediately contact the National Office whenever they acquire real property to obtain further instructions on the time frames and procedures for advertising and disposing of such property.

[62 FR 44401, Aug. 21, 1997]
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. §1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. (the "Registrant") for the
period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James P. Henderson, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date:
November 4, 2010

By:

/s/ JAMES P. HENDERSON James P. Henderson Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)


---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 4.4 Summary of Employment Arrangements between Schering AG and Mr. Marc Rubin**

 

**Summary of Employment Arrangements**

**between Schering Aktiengesellschaft**

**and Marc Rubin**

This English-language summary of the material terms of the employment arrangements in effect as of October 1, 2003 between Schering Aktiengesellschaft (the "Company") and Marc Rubin, Member of the Executive Board of the Company, is based on the terms of certain letter agreements between the Company and Mr.Rubin.

Term: Mr. Rubin was elected as Member of the Executive Board of the Company as of October 1, 2003. His current term will expire on September 30, 2006 with automatic extension for another two years unless the Supervisory Board revokes the appointment until March 31, 2006. The term of the employment arrangements described herein is concurrent with Mr. Rubin’s term.

Compensation: The aggregate remuneration of Mr. Rubin for 2005 is comprised of the following three elements:

 

| Fixed Compensation:    | EUR | 540.000,00   |                                                                                                       |
|------------------------|-----|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Variable Compensation: | EUR | 1.624.400,00 | (determined by reference to earnings per share (EPS) exceeding the threshold value of EUR 0,636 per share) |

 

Stock-Based Compensation:

| Stock options granted | € 201.800,00 |
|-----------------------|-------------------|

 

Retirement: The Company will make a monthly pension contribution equal to 3 times the monthly base salary of technical employees in group E13 applicable at the Company’s site in Bergkamen, Germany.

 

| Others                             | Euro      |
|------------------------------------|-----------|
| Berlin/New Jersey cost of living   | 91.827,00 |
| Second housing (Berlin/New Jersey) | 55.000,00 |
|                               |      |
| Workers Comp                       | 307,21    |
| Social Security (USA)              | 4.507,27  |
| Medicare (USA)                     | 30.017,51 |
|                               |      |
| Insurance (KUV)                    | 890,88    |
|                               |      |
| Car                                | (USA)     | 14.947,67 |
|                               | (Germany) | 5.632,13 |
|                               |      | 20.579,80 |
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.523 Other administrative requirements.

The following policies and regulations apply to grants made under this subpart:

The policies of 7 CFR part 1970 apply to grants made under this subpart regarding historic properties and environmental compliance.

[81 FR 11031, Mar. 2, 2016]
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________**
No. 23

- 10856

**____________ Julian Pratt Waterman Archer; Jane Gochenour**  **Archer,**

Plaintiffs

— Appellants **,**

versus
**Stephen A. Kennedy; Kennedy Law, L.L.P.; Kennedy Law, P.C.,** 

Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for th e Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21

- CV

- 748

**______________________________** Before **Higginbotham ,**  **Stewart ,**  and **Southwick ,**  Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Appellants Jane and Julian Archer appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees, finding that the Archers ’ professional negligence claimed was precluded as a matter of law as they failed to provide sufficient evidence of damages. After reviewing the br iefs and

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 3, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10856 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2024No. 23

- 10856

2 relevant records, we **AFFIRM** for essentially the reasons of the able district court judge’s July 17, 2023 Memorandum Opinion and Order. Case: 23-10856 Document: 47-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2024
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

# STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths Into and Out of STEM Fields

This report from the Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics analyzes data collected on a cohort of students on their movement into and out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields from the start of their postsecondary education through the subsequent six years. The study focuses on the rate of attrition from STEM and other fields, characteristics of students who leave STEM fields, course taking and performance differences between students who stay in or leave these fields, and the factors associated with STEM attrition. 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES MARK ROUSSEAU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71587

Agency No. A096-356-454

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Charles Mark Rousseau, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

MAY 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71587

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, and we review de novo the agency’s legal

determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We

deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Rousseau established

changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.4(a)(4). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Rousseau’s experiences with

militant Muslims and the Indonesian police, cumulatively considered, rise to the

level of persecution. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006)

(Eritrean government’s seizure of father’s business, along with some degree of

social ostracism, did not rise to the level of persecution); Halim v. Holder, 590

F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (incidents suffered by ethnic Chinese petitioner in

Indonesia, considered in the aggregate, did not amount to persecution). Further,

even under a disfavored group analysis, the record does not compel the conclusion

that Rousseau established a clear probability of persecution, because he did not

demonstrate sufficient individualized risk. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 977-80;

Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need
3 09-71587

to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence”). 

Accordingly, Rousseau’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Rousseau failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured with

the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia. See

Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2032 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2032

To prohibit certain transfers of radioactive metal by the Department of 
                    Energy, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2013

  Mr. Markey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit certain transfers of radioactive metal by the Department of 
                    Energy, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ban All Radioactive Recycling Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. RADIOACTIVE METAL.

    (a) Amendment.--Subtitle D of title I of the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10171) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new section:

                          ``radioactive metal

    ``Sec. 152.  (a) Prohibition.--The Department of Energy shall not 
plan or undertake sales, trades, barters, or transfers of any metal 
that has been used or stored in a radiological area other than for the 
purposes of storage pursuant to subsection (b).
    ``(b) Storage.--Such metal shall, when removed from the 
radiological area in which it was used or stored, be stored or disposed 
of at a site--
            ``(1) specifically licensed by the Commission for the 
        storage or disposal of radioactive waste;
            ``(2) specifically licensed by a State pursuant to section 
        274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2021) for the 
        storage or disposal of radioactive waste; or
            ``(3) at a site on property owned by the Department of 
        Energy that has been approved by the Secretary for the storage 
        or disposal of radioactive waste.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act of 1982 is amended by adding after the item relating 
to section 151 the following new item:

``Sec. 152. Radioactive metal.''.
                                 <all>
```
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsIndependent Orbiter Assessment: Assessment of the FMEA/CIL Instructions and Ground RulesThe McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company was selected to conduct an independent assessment of the Orbiter Failure Mode and Effects Analysis/Critical Items List (FMEA/CIL). Part of this effort involved an examination of the FMEA/CIL preparation instructions and ground rules. Assessment objectives were to identify omissions and ambiguities in the ground rules that may impede the identification of shuttle orbiter safety and mission critical items, and to ensure that ground rules allow these items to receive proper management visibility for risk assessment. Assessment objectives were followed during the performance of the assessment without being influenced by external considerations such as effects on budget, schedule, and documentation growth. Assessment personnel were employed who had a strong reliability background but no previous space shuttle FMEA/CIL experience to ensure an independent assessment would be achieved. The following observations were made: (1) not all essential items are in the CIL for management visibility; (2) ground rules omit FMEA/CIL coverage of items that perform critical functions; (3) essential items excluded from the CIL do not receive design justification; and (4) FMEAs/CILs are not updated in a timely manner. In addition to the above issues, a number of other issues were identified that correct FMEA/CIL preparation instruction omissions and clarify ambiguities. The assessment was successful in that many of the issues have significant safety implications.Document ID19900001606Acquisition SourceJohnson Space CenterDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsTraves, S. T.*(McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics Co. Houston, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 14, 1986Subject CategorySpace TransportationReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:185551NASA-CR-185551REPT-1.0-WP-VA86001-01Accession Number90N10922Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS9-17650Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightUse by or on behalf of the US Gov. Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900001606.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024