alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Adele Totterman, Respondent, v. Jay Company Notions and Novelties, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Special Disability Fund, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which affirmed an award to the claimant for continuing causally related disability subsequent to May 7, 1963. It is established that the claimant suffered *“*a causally related occupational contact dermatitis due to the splashing of dye on her legs”. The appellants do not question the propriety of an award for total disability for the period of time the claimant was hospitalized for this condition. The appellants contend that there is no evidence in the record to show that the condition of the claimant prevented her from returning to work. Dr. Orris testified that the claimant should not work where she would be exposed to the dye which caused the dermatitis and the claimant testified that she had been unable to find any other type of work. The record establishes that the claimant was still afflicted with the condition at the time of the award. The appellants correctly note, however, that there has been no evidence as to the extent and degree of disability and that the board’s finding of 66%% causally related disability has no basis in the *972record. It appears that the claimant suffers a continuing medical disability and that she is unable to return to her former work because of this disability. Subdivision 5-a of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law provides that the board may fix such wage earning capacity as shall be resasonable. In the present ease the board has affirmed the Referee’s finding that the claimant had a one-third earning capacity, but there is nothing in the record to indicate what such capacity is in fact and the board gave no basis for such determination. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for such further proceedings as the board may deem necessary and for specific findings as to the earning capacity. Decision reversed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and case remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA scheme for supporting automatic data migration on multicomputersA data migration mechanism is proposed that allows an explicit and controlled mapping of data to memory. While read or write copies of each data element can be assigned to any processor's memory, longer term storage of each data element is assigned to a specific location in the memory of a particular processor. Data is presented that suggests that the scheme may be a practical method for efficiently supporting data migration.Document ID19900013657Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsMirchandaney, Seema*(Yale Univ. New Haven, CT., United States)*Saltz, Joel H.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Mehrotra, Piyush*(Purdue Univ. West Lafayette, IN., United States)*Berryman, Harry*(Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1990Subject CategoryMathematical And Computer Sciences (General)Report/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:182038ICASE-90-33NASA-CR-182038AD-A227141Meeting InformationMeeting: Distributed Memory Computing ConferenceLocation: Charleston, SCCountry: United StatesStart Date: April 1, 1990Accession Number90N22973Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-18605Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900013657.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
#### Wakerman Leather Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Irvin B. Foster Sportswear Co., Inc., Appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court which denied defendant’s application pursuant to CPLR 317 to set aside a default judgment entered upon nonpersonal service of a summons and notice in an action to recover for merchandise sold and delivered, and to be allowed to defend the action. Defendant is a foreign corporation and service was made upon the Secretary of State pursuant to defendant’s statement and designation filed pursuant to section 210 of the General Corporation Law, in which, however, its address within the State was erroneously set forth, with the result that it did not receive the process mailed to it by the Secretary of State. We find, contrary to respondent’s contention, that the relief sought is within the scope of CPLR 317, as defendant was not served with the summons “by personal delivery to him or to his agent for service designated under rule 318 ”; and there appears to us no warrant for equating “Personal service” within the generalizations of CPLR 311 (subd. 1) with “personal delivery” within the frame and specific purpose of CPLR 317, as respondent would have us do. Additionally, the language “agent for service designated under rule 318” would in such ease become redundant. Further, from the plain language of CPLR 317 and 318 it is readily apparent that the Secretary of State is not to be considered a rule 318 agent. (See 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 317.04; McLaughlin, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y. Book 7B, CPLR 317.) The modification of the prior statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 217) renders inapposite the authorities upon which respondent relies. (Weinstein-Korn-Miller, *op. cit.,*par. 317.04.) Appellant might also have moved under CPLR 5015 (subd. [a], par. 1). We find insubstantial the other contentions advanced by respondent in support of the order appealed from. Upon the oral argument appellant stated that it was prepared to post security for the payment *768of the judgment and would be ready to proceed to trial promptly. These concessions, coupled with Trial Term’s careful consideration of an application to set the ease down for trial at such time as the case, including all counterclaims, shall be at issue and plaintiff shall file note of issue, should largely mitigate plaintiff’s claim of prejudicial delay. Order reversed on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion and motion granted upon condition that defendant shall give security, to be approved by Special Term, for payment of the 'judgment and shall stipulate to be ready for trial, and to join in an application to the Trial Term to have the ease set down for prompt trial in the Supreme Court, Fulton County, at such time as the ease, including all counterclaims, shall be at issue and plaintiff shall have filed due and proper note of issue; and ease remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance herewith, without costs. Settle order. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in a memorandum decision *Per Curiam.*
###### Editorial Note on Part 3406

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3406 appear at 76 FR 4809, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3406.5 Matching support.

The Department strongly encourages and may require non-Federal matching support for this program. In the annual program solicitation, NIFA will announce any incentives that may be offered to applicants for committing their own institutional resources or securing third party contributions in support of capacity building projects. NIFA may also announce any required fixed dollar amount or percentage of institutional cost sharing, if applicable.
#### O’MARA et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

*1133July 24, 1906.)

Action by Johanna O'Mara and Patrick H. Scott, as administratrix and administrator, etc. of Michael O'Mara, deceased, against the New fork Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### § 3200.6 Restrictions.

(a) Property in the following Federal Supply Groups are prohibited from transfer.

| FSC Group | Name |
| --- | --- |
| 10 | Weapons. |
| 11 | Nuclear ordinance. |
| 13 | Ammunition and explosives. |
| 14 | Guided missiles. |
| 18 | Space vehicles. |

Ineligible Federal Supply Code Groups

(b) The property in the FSC's listed below are discouraged from transfer and not approved on a routine basis. However, Institutions may request items in these FSC groups, but all requests will be referred to the Director, Office of Procurement and Property Management for consideration and approval:

| FSC Group | Name |
| --- | --- |
| 15 | Aircraft and airframe structural components. |
| 16 | Aircraft components and accessories. |
| 17 | Aircraft launching, landing and ground handling equipment. |
| 20 | Ship and marine equipment. |

(c) Excess personal property may be transferred for the purpose of cannibalization, provided the eligible institution submits a supporting statement which clearly indicates that cannibalizing the requested property for secondary use has greater benefit than utilization of the item in its existing form.

(d) Use of the procedures in this part for the purpose of stockpiling of excess personal property for future cannibalization is prohibited. Transfer requests for the purpose of cannibalization will be considered, but are normally subordinate to requests for complete items.

[63 FR 57234, Oct. 27, 1998, as amended at 68 FR 75107, Dec. 30, 2003]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards

109 T.W. Alexander Drive

Durham, NC 27709

 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Data files used in the analysis of “Potential for Excess Local Deposition of Mercury

in Areas near U.S. EGUs” for MATS docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

FROM: Halil Cakir

Air Quality Analysis Division

Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

DATE: December 12, 2011

The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit data files which were used in the GIS analysis of 

excess local mercury deposition supporting the appropriate and necessary finding for the Mercury

and Air Toxics Standard. This analysis is described in the “Technical Support Document: 

Potential for Excess Local Deposition of Mercury in Areas near U.S. EGUs”, which is available 

in the docket. 

The disc accompanying this memo contains the following information:

a) ArcGIS 10 ArcMap document (Hot Spot Analysis.mxd) that saves map layouts, features, 

symbology, spatial extent of the maps, and relative path names. 

b) the CMAQ-modeled Hg excess deposition files for the 2005 and 2016 scenarios 

c) the spatial averages of the U.S. EGU-attributable deposition (obtained by subtracting 

estimated mercury deposition with U.S. EGU Hg emissions zeroed out from baseline 

mercury deposition from all sources including U.S. EGU Hg emissions) across the grid 

cells with centers falling inside the 50 km and 500 km buffers.

Attachments

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.27

Summary of Directors Compensation Plan

Effective as of March 1, 2005, the independent directors of Idenix
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. receive the following compensation for their service on
our Board of Directors:

     -    $30,000 per year retainer plus $5,000 per year for each committee of
          the Board which the director chairs;

     -    expense reimbursement for attending Board and committee meetings; and

     -    the opportunity to participate in our equity compensation plan with
          awards of equity compensation occurring as follows:

               -    upon appointment - options to purchase 15,000 shares of
                    common stock

               -    at each annual meeting after election - options to purchase
                    20,000 shares of common stock

               -    if appointment to the board occurs to fill a vacancy or
                    otherwise at a time other than immediately after the annual
                    meeting of stockholders - the annual award of options to
                    purchase 20,000 shares will be prorated from the date of
                    appointment to the date of the next annual meeting of
                    stockholders.
§ 295.9 Appeals. ( a ) Any person whose request for records is denied shall have the right to appeal that denial in accordance with USDA Administrative Regulations 7 CFR 1.13. All appeals shall be addressed to: Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302-1500.
( b ) The following officials are delegated authority to make decisions on Freedom of Information Act appeals at the address above: ( 1 ) Food Stamp program (general)—Deputy Administrator, Food Stamp Program;
( 2 ) Food Stamp program (appeals on names of Food Stamp Investigators and Investigative aids)—Director, Benefit Redemption Division;
( 3 ) Child Nutrition program—Deputy Administrator, Special Nutrition Programs;
( 4 ) Food Distribution program—Deputy Administrator, Special Nutrition Programs;
( 5 ) Supplemental Food program—Deputy Administrator, Special Nutrition Programs;
( 6 ) Management offices—Deputy Administrator, Management;
( 7 ) Financial Management offices—Deputy Administrator, Financial Management;
( 8 ) Appeals not covered above—Associate Administrator, FNS.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:93cr4028-WS

KARIM SHAREEF MATEEN, 4:06cv19-WS

f/k/a/ REGINALD MARCEL DENNIS,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 870)

docketed June 15, 2006. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

"Petition to Vacate a Void Judgment in Reference to Federal Civil Judicial Procedures

and Rules 60(b)(4) & (5)" be summarily dismissed. The defendant has filed no

objections to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the report and

recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 870) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

Case 4:93-cr-04028-WS-WCS Document 875 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:90cr4008-WS

2. The defendant’s "Petition to Vacate a Void Judgment in Reference to Federal

Civil Judicial Procedures and Rules 60(b)(4) & (5)" (doc. 852) is hereby summarily

DENIED.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall close Case No.

4:06cv19-WS.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of August , 2006.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:93-cr-04028-WS-WCS Document 875 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Nova Resources Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alexander Craven, the Chief Executive Officer, President and Director (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of 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 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated: January 19, 2007

 
| By: | /s/  Alexander Craven |  
 

Alexander Craven, President, Chief Executive Officer

 
 

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

 

 

  |
|-----|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1996
<CASH>                                             411
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,446
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,468
<PP&E>                                           8,359
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,196
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,824
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           489
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,602
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,586
<SALES>                                        122,030
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               122,030
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  105,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   101
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  69
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,646
<INCOME-TAX>                                       691
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                955
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       955
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
May 20, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CHRISTOPHER ARTHUR T ATUM , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00221

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### § 319.75-6 Arrival notification.

Promptly upon arrival of any regulated article at a port of entry, the importer shall notify Plant Protection and Quarantine of the arrival by such means as a manifest, Customs entry document, commercial invoice, waybill, a broker's document, or a notice form provided for that purpose.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0049)

[46 FR 38334, July 27, 1981, as amended at 48 FR 57466, Dec. 30, 1983; 79 FR 19811, Apr. 10, 2014]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2320 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2320

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

 
 To make available funds included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 
for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for fiscal year 2006, 
                         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. FUNDS FOR LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

    Section 9001 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 is amended--
        (1) in subsection (a)--
            (A) by striking ``for a 1-time only obligation and 
        expenditure'';
            (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$250,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 2007'' and inserting ``$500,000,000 for fiscal year 
        2006''; and
            (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$750,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 2007'' and inserting ``$500,000,000 for fiscal year 
        2006'';
        (2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
        (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
    ``(b) Limitation.--None of the funds made available under this 
section may be used for the planning and administering described in 
section 2605(b)(9) of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 
(42 U.S.C. 8624(b)(9)).''; and
        (4) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), by 
    striking ``September 30, 2007'' and inserting ``September 30, 
    2006''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN RE: PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY 4:95-mc-40111

 ADMISSION FEE

 /

Northern District of Florida Local Rule 11.1(C)(2) allows for pro hac vice

admissions to coincide with admission requirements for regularly admitted attorneys,

including allowing attorneys admitted pro hac vice to remain as a member of the bar of

this district after their original case has concluded. As a result of this continued

admission status, the pro hac vice admission fee tracks the application fee for attorneys

seeking general admission to the bar of this district. The Judicial Conference recently

approved recommended increases to the miscellaneous fee schedule for district courts,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914. The new fee schedule, which becomes effective

November 1, 2011, includes a Twenty-Six Dollar ($26) increase of the attorney

admission fee. Therefore, consistent with the national increase to the court’s fee

schedules, effective this date, the Clerk is hereby directed to collect from attorneys

requesting permission to appear pro hac vice an admission fee in the amount of One

Hundred Ninety-Six Dollars ($196), payable to the Clerk of this Court.

The One Hundred Ninety-Six Dollars ($196) pro hac vice fee shall be submitted

in accordance with Local Rule 11.1(C)(2), and shall be collected for, and remitted by the

Clerk, to the Federal Bench and Bar Fund of the district.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2011.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:95-mc-40111-DJ Document 144 Filed 11/01/11 Page 1 of 1