alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of James Heyward, Respondent, v Rose Freedman, Doing Business as Rose Mildoff Antique Shop, et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 6, 1977 and July 20, 1978. The board found that claimant has a permanent partial disability causally related to his earlier compensable back injury, and that the Special Fund has no liability pursuant to section 25-a of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The board’s decisions are supported by substantial evidence in the entire record, and, accordingly, must be affirmed. Decisions affirmed, with one bill *737of costs to respondents filing briefs against the employer and its insurance carrier. Sweeney, J. P., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
§ 372.10 Process for rapid response to emergencies. When it is determined (by the Administrator or the delegated Agency official responsible for environmental review) that an emergency exists that requires immediate action before preparing and completing the usual NEPA review, then the provisions of this section apply. ( a ) The Administrator or the delegated Agency official responsible for environmental review may take actions that are necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency and that are urgently needed to prevent imminent damage to public health or safety, or prevent threats to valuable resources. When taking such actions, the Administrator or the delegated Agency official responsible for environmental review will consider the probable environmental consequences of the emergency action and mitigate foreseeable adverse environmental effects to the extent practicable.
( b ) If a proposed emergency action is normally analyzed in an environmental assessment as described in § 372.5 and the nature and scope of proposed emergency actions are such that there is insufficient time to prepare an EA and FONSI before commencing the proposed action, the Administrator shall consult with APHIS' Chief of Environmental and Risk Analysis Services about alternative arrangements for NEPA compliance. APHIS' Chief of Environmental and Risk Analysis Services may authorize emergency alternative arrangements for completing the required NEPA compliance documentation. Any alternative arrangements must be documented and notice of their use provided to CEQ.
( c ) If a proposed emergency action is likely to result in significant environmental impacts, then APHIS will immediately consult with CEQ and request alternative arrangements in accordance with CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1506.11. Such alternative arrangements will apply only to the proposed actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other proposed actions remain subject to NEPA analysis and documentation in accordance with the CEQ regulations and these regulations.
[83 FR 24011, May 24, 2018]
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
 
    
    Mindray (UK) Limited, incorporated in the United Kingdom
    
    Mindray Research and Development Limited, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands
    
    Mindray Global Limited, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands
    
    Mindray Medical USA Corp., incorporated in the United States of America
    
    Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., Ltd., incorporated in the Peoples Republic of China
    
    Beijing Shen Mindray Medical Electronics Technology Research Institute Co., Ltd., incorporated in the
Peoples Republic of China
    
    MR Holdings (HK) Limited, incorporated in Hong Kong
    
    MR Investments (HK) Limited, incorporated in Hong Kong
    
    PT Mind ray Medical Indonesia, incorporated in Indonesia
    
    Nanjing Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co. Ltd, incorporated in the Peoples Republic of China
    
    Mindray Medical Mexico S de R. L. De C. V., incorporated in Mexico
    
    Mindray  Distribution and Commercialization of Medical Equipment Brazil Ltda., incorporated in Brazil
    
    Mindray Medical Rus Limited, incorporated in Russia
    
    Mindray Medical India Private Limited, incorporated in India
    
    Mindray Investments Singapore Pte. Ltd., incorporated in Singapore
    
    Mindray Medical Canada Limited, incorporated in Canada
    
    Mindray Medical Netherlands B.V., incorporated in the Netherlands
    
    Mindray DS USA, Inc., incorporated in Delaware
    
    Mindray Medical France SARL, incorporated in France
    
    Mindray Medical Germany GmbH, incorporated in Germany
    
    Datascope International B.V. Netherlands Filial, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands
    
    Mindray Medical Italy S.r.l., incorporated in Italy
    
    Mindray Medical Technology Istanbul Limited Liability Company, incorporated in Turkey
    
    Artema Medical AB, incorporated in Sweden
31.103 Contracts with commercial

organizations.

This category includes all contracts and contract modifications for supplies, services, or

experimental, developmental, or research work negotiated with organizations other than educational

institutions (see 31.104), construction and architect-engineer contracts (see 31.105), State and local

governments (see 31.107) and nonprofit organizations (see 31.108) on the basis of cost.

(a) The cost principles and procedures in subpart 31.2 and agency supplements shall be used in

pricing negotiated supply, service, experimental, developmental, and research contracts and

contract modifications with commercial organizations whenever cost analysis is performed as

required by 15.404-1(c).

(b) In addition, the contracting officer shall incorporate the cost principles and procedures in

subpart 31.2 and agency supplements by reference in contracts with commercial organizations as

the basis for-

(1) Determining reimbursable costs under-

(i) Cost-reimbursement contracts and cost-reimbursement subcontracts under these contracts

performed by commercial organizations and

(ii) The cost-reimbursement portion of time-and-materials contracts except when material is priced

on a basis other than at cost (see 16.601(c)(3));

(2) Negotiating indirect cost rates (see subpart 42.7);

(3) Proposing, negotiating, or determining costs under terminated contracts (see 49.103 and

49.113);

(4) Price revision of fixed-price incentive contracts (see 16.204 and 16.403);

(5) Price redetermination of price redetermination contracts (see 16.205 and 16.206); and

(6) Pricing changes and other contract modifications.

Parent topic: Subpart 31.1 - Applicability
160 So.2d 224

#### Wiltz Francis SEGURA v. P. D. LELEUX.

No. 47084.

Feb. 7, 1964.

Tn re: Wiltz Francis Segura applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Iberia. 158 So.2d 393.

Writ refused. No error of law under the facts found by the Court of Appeal.

McCALEB, J.,

is of the opinion that the decision of the Court of Appeal is incorrect and, further, that a writ should be granted as a matter of right under Section 11 of Article 7 of the Constitution as the decision is in direct conflict with Hecker v. Betz, 172 So. 816, decided by the Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.
2006-0804.

#### State v. Franklin.

Greene App. No. 2004 CA 127, 2005-Ohio-6832. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER11-2063-000]
 Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC
Docket No. ER11-2063-000.
 This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is December 7, 2010. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at 
                    *http://www.ferc.gov.*
                     To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
                    ( print page 73074) The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
                    *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.*
                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2010-29849 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Beatrice Auerbach, Respondent, v. E. R. E., Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order entered on February 3, 1966, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss *922for delay and unreasonable neglect to prosecute the action unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants and motion granted. The action was begun in June, 1963 on a claim that accrued in December, 1957. Issue was joined in September, 1963. No further steps were taken until December, 1965. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion is ¡based on the absence of the 45-day demand provided for in CPLR 3216. This reliance is misplaced where the application is made on grounds of general delay *(Thomas*v. *Melbert Foods,*19 N Y 2d 216). Here, that delay was inordinate. Concur — Steuer, J. P., Tilzer, McNally and MeGivern, JJ.
RAB/98-20

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Railroad Accident Brief Report

ATL 97 FR 012

EMPLOYEE FATALITY

 SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

APRIL 24, 1997

On April 24, 1997, at approximately 12:02 a.m., eastern daylight time, a

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) track workman

was fatally injured when he was struck by a SEPTA subway train at the 52nd

Street Station in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The train was operating west on the eastbound track due to track work.

As the train approached the 52nd Street Station the motorman observed two

individuals in the track area near the east end of the station platform. The

motorman sounded the whistle and placed the train into emergency braking.

One of the men fled to the eastbound track, and the other attempted to climb

onto the platform but slipped and was fatally injured when he was pinned

between the train and the platform. No passengers or crewmembers were

injured as a result of the accident. A light rain was falling at the time of the

accident

According to SEPTA’s rules, no one may enter the track areas without the

permission of the train dispatcher. The workmen failed to obtain the permission

from the train dispatcher. The workmen also failed to comply with SEPTA’s rules

that require employees performing work on or about tracks to carry and display

the worker’s portable warning signal, which during daylight hours is a whistle sign

consisting of a black “W” on a rectangular sign with a black border and at night a

flashing yellow lantern. The track workman stated that he did not place any

yellow lanterns or banners out for protection. The motorman said that he never

passed any work zone lights or flagmen to warn him of persons working on or

about the track.

PROBABLE CAUSE

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable

cause of this accident was the failure of the two trackmen to obtain permission

from the train dispatcher to perform the assigned work, and their failure to

properly protect themselves by placing yellow lanterns or banners as required by

SEPTA rules. Contributing to the accident was the lack of management oversight

to have a program to monitor the performance of track department personnel.

Adopted: August 18, 1998
Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 16 Filed 12/01/20 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 16 Filed 12/01/20 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 16 Filed 12/01/20 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 16 Filed 12/01/20 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 16 Filed 12/01/20 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 16 Filed 12/01/20 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 16 Filed 12/01/20 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 16 Filed 12/01/20 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 16 Filed 12/01/20 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 16 Filed 12/01/20 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 16 Filed 12/01/20 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 16 Filed 12/01/20 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:20-cv-00168-AW-GRJ Document 16 Filed 12/01/20 Page 13 of 13
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.504 Equipment of USDA or SBA officials. ( a ) *Computer capability.* You must have a personal computer with access to the Internet and be able to use this equipment to prepare reports and transmit such reports to the Agency. In addition, you must have the capability to send and receive electronic mail.
( b ) *Facsimile capability.* You must be able to receive facsimile messages 24 hours per day at your primary office.
( c ) *Accessible office.* You must maintain an office that is convenient to the public and is open for business during normal working hours.
[69 FR 32204, June 8, 2004, as amended at 76 FR 80222, Dec. 23, 2011]
#### Mariann Krok, Also Known as Mariann Montagna, Respondent, v James Krok, Appellant.

Consolidated appeals by the former husband (1) from an order of the Family Court, Putnam County, dated November 6, 1978, which directed him to pay (a) child support in the amount of $125 per week, (b) the cost of his child’s tuition at private school, and (c) counsel fees in the amount of $1,000; and (2) as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated April 25, 1979, as denied that branch of his motion which was for a new trial before a different Judge. Order dated November 6, 1978, reversed, without costs or disbursements, and case remanded to Family Court for a new trial before another Judge in accordance herewith. Appeal from order dated April 25, 1979 dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, in view of the determination with respect to the order dated November 6, 1978. The failure of the Family Court to adequately consider the former wife’s financial circumstances and her ability, if any, to contribute toward the support of the minor child requires that the award of child support be reversed and the matter remanded for further consideration and an apportionment of the costs of such support, if appropriate, between the respective parents "according to their respective means” (see *Matter of Carter v Carter,*58 AD2d 438, 440). In addition, so much of the order appealed from as directed the former husband to bear the cost of his child’s tuition at a private school is not supported by the record, as it is well established that "absen[t] * * * proof [of] special circumstances * * * which warrant enrollment of the infant issue in private schools, it [is] error for the trial court to direct [a parent] to continue payment of his [child’s] private school expenses (see *Habas v Habas,*56 AD2d 747; *Berry v Berry,*56 AD2d 522; *Wagner v Wagner,*51 Mise 2d 574, affd 28 AD2d 828; *Earle v Earle,*205 Mise 738; cf. *Matter of Kotkin v Kerner,*29 AD2d 367)” *(Baiamonte v Baiamonte,*67 AD2d 992). In view of our determination remanding the matter for a new trial, so much of this consolidated appeal as concerns the order dated April 25, 1979 has been rendered academic. Since there must be a new trial herein, it would be advisable for the entire matter to be referred to a different Judge for trial. Lazer, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### MOISON, Appellant, v. BURR, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by John W. Moison against Henry B. Burr.

No opinion. Judgment and order of the County Court of Rockland county reversed, and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event; on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
Under psX.oh an inruest In autkorized by lew. 

"Any justioe of the peaoe shell be autiwrlzsd, nnd it shsll be his duty, to hold 

inquests without a jury Mthin *hiis oounty, 

in the following onses: 

1. i2xm a per00n Lies 11~ prison. 

2. 'Shm eny per- is,idU.rd, or 

sromauyeauud&8s8nunMtulc 

8l death, 0x08@ uatlor 8ont8noo 

afthol8u,or~thoab8aaoo 

ar 00 ar mo2.u goad tita008e8. 

s. wh88fhob0uyorahkumu~ 

s-08 

-. 
-
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 4:96cr75/MMP

DEWAYNE DUGAN

 /

O R D E R

This matter is before the court for consideration of reduction of defendant’s

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The government has filed an opposition to

sentence reduction, raising an issue of public safety. (Doc. 203). Upon consideration, the

court finds it appropriate to appoint counsel and permit defendant an opportunity to argue

his entitlement to a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court has

determined that defendant is qualified for appointment of counsel pursuant to the

provisions of the Criminal Justice Act. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1

1. The Federal Public Defender, 111 North Adams Street, Suite 100,

Tallahassee, Florida 32301, telephone number (850) 521-3851, is appointed to represent

this defendant and serve as counsel of record for the purposes of resentencing in the

above-styled cause. The defendant is presently in custody. If a Criminal Justice Act (CJA)

panel attorney is selected by the Federal Public Defender as defendant’s attorney, this

order authorizes payment of the CJA attorney for work on behalf of defendant.

2. Followingappearance by appointed counsel, the court will allow forty-five (45)

days within which to file a motion on behalf of defendant. If no motion is filed within the

By initial Order dated October 22, 1996, defendant was determined qualified for appointment of

1

counsel. Defendant has remained in custody since that date and the court sees to no basis or reason to alter

his CJA qualification status.

Case 4:96-cr-00075-MP Document 204 Filed 11/08/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

prescribed time period, the court will enter an order denying sentence reduction pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

DONE and ORDERED 8th day of November, 2011.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 4:96cr75/MMP

Case 4:96-cr-00075-MP Document 204 Filed 11/08/11 Page 2 of 2
#### § 3430.407 Program requirements.

Following the completion of a peer review process for grant proposals received under this subpart, the Director may provide a priority for those proposals, found in the peer review process to be scientifically meritorious, that involve the cooperation of multiple entities.
# CI2021093EN.01000101.xml

| 19.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 93/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 93/1

---

Corrigendum to the Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission on the Conference on the Future of Europe – Engaging with citizens for democracy – Building a more resilient Europe

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 91 I of 18 March 2021
  )

(2021/C 93 I/01)

On the cover, in the table of contents, and on page 1, in the heading:

for:

‘EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT’,

read:

‘EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

COUNCIL

EUROPEAN COMMISSION’.

---
#### § 46.15 Documents to be preserved.

Bills of lading, diversion orders, paid freight and other bills, car manifests, express receipts, confirmations and memorandums of sales, letter and wire correspondence, inspection certificates, invoices on purchases, receiving records, sales tickets, copies of statements (bills) of sales to customers, accounts of sales, papers relating to loss and damage claims against carriers, records as to reconditioning, shrinkage and dumping, daily inventories by lots, a consolidated record of all rebates and allowances made or received in connection with shipments handled for the account of another, an itemized daily record of cash receipts, ledger records in which purchases and sales can be verified, and all other pertinent papers relating to the shipment, handling, delivery, and sale of each lot of produce shall be preserved for a period of 2 years.
30.000 Scope of part.

This part describes policies and procedures for applying the Cost Accounting Standards Board

(CASB) rules and regulations ( 48 CFR Chapter 99) to negotiated contracts and subcontracts. This

part does not apply to sealed bid contracts or to any contract with a small business concern (see 48

CFR 9903.201-1(b) for these and other exemptions).

Parent topic: Part 30 - Cost Accounting Standards Administration
#### §§ 3560.507-3560.549 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 5:03cr17-RH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 5:03cr17-RH

BENJAMIN WHITE,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER TERMINATING SUPERVISED RELEASE

By letter, the defendant Benjamin White has requested early termination of 

supervised release. ECF No. 40. The probation officer has advised the court’s 

staff that she supports early termination and the government does not oppose it. 

I have considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the criteria 

listed in Monograph 109 as approved by the Judicial Conference of the United 

States. I find that termination of supervised release at this time is warranted by the 

defendant’s conduct and the interest of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED: 

Case 5:03-cr-00017-RH Document 41 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 5:03cr17-RH

Mr. White’s term of supervised release is terminated as of September 2, 

2015, at 5:51 p.m.

SO ORDERED on September 2, 2015.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cr-00017-RH Document 41 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 2