alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 80536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32052]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 National Warheads and Energetics Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 30, 2010, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), National Warheads and 
Energetics Consortium (``NWEC'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Franklin Engineering Group, Inc., 
Franklin, TN; RDM Engineering, LLC, East Brunswick, NJ; Rocky Mountain 
Scientific Laboratory, Centennial, CO; Rocky Research, Boulder City, 
NV; The Research Foundation of State University of New York, 
Binghamton, NY; and Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, PA, have been 
added as parties to this venture.
    Also, AMTEC Corporation, Janesville, WI; Atlantic Technical 
Components, Inc., Middletown, NY; CAE Solutions Corp., Fremont, CA; and 
Clear Align, Eagleville, PA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture. 
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and NWEC intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 2, 2000, NWSC filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) oi the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 30, 
2010 (65 PR 40963).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 16, 
2010. A norice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on September 8, 2010 (74 FR 54652).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-32052 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### § 52.175 Transfer of manufacturing license.

A manufacturing license may be transferred in accordance with § 50.80 of this chapter.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 139 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         March 8, 2005.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he is hereby, elected to 
the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Burton of Indiana to rank after Mr. 
Stearns.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### MERRILL, Appellant, v. UNITED BOX BOARD & PAPER CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

July 1, 1914.)

Action by Cyrus S. Merrill against the United Box Board & Paper Company.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. See, also, 143 App. Div. 833, 128 N. Y. Supp. 959.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**341 KA 10-01926**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ALLEN GRAYSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

CARA A. WALDMAN, FAIRPORT, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Daniel J. Doyle, J.), rendered July 26, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]), defendant contends that the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid and challenges the severity of the sentence. Although we agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because the perfunctory inquiry made by Supreme Court was “insufficient to establish that the court ‘engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice’ ” ( People v Brown , 296 AD2d 860, 860, lv denied 98 NY2d 767; see People v Hamilton , 49 AD3d 1163, 1164), we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh
or severe.

Entered: March 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 

10 

Dthem from getting into 

Use the code to fill in the 

24 9 6 14 25 8 

20 26 9 

7 8 

8 6 20 8 

7 7 12 22 8 

8 6 13 21 15 12 4 9 8 

25 18 9 6 8 8 

Clean up 

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____. 

8 9 22 22 13 8 

Put ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Put up ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____. 

Plant ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 

Outsmart

those

pests! 

o pests bug you? Keep 

your home, yard, or 

garden in the first place. 

blanks. You’ll see ways to 

outsmart pesty insects, 

weeds, and diseases. 

25 26 20 22 

Welcome ____ ____ ____ ____ ____. 

They eat ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 

that eat and damage plants. 

Take 

and recycling outdoors. 

12 26 23 

15 

12 14 26 

22 

23 19 12 22 

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____to keep 

their leaves off the ground. Water them with a can or 

bucket, not a spray. Then spores that live in the soil won’t 

splash up on the plants and make them sick. 

Wipe up spills. Keep rooms clean. 

24 

on doors and windows. Keep insects out! 

Stake up 

and plants with berries. These attract birds 

to feast on insects that harm plants. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 2003
§ 605.10 Application evaluation and selection. ( a ) Applications shall be evaluated for funding generally within 6 months but, in any event, no later than 12 months from the date of receipt by DOE. After DOE has held an application for 6 months, the applicant may, in response to DOE's request, be required to revalidate the terms of the original application.
( b ) DOE staff shall perform an initial evaluation of all applications to ensure that the information required by this part is provided, that the proposed effort is technically sound and feasible, and that the effort is consistent with program funding priorities. For applications which pass the initial evaluation, DOE shall review and evaluate each application received based on the criteria set forth below and in accordance with the Merit Review System developed as required under DOE Financial Assistance Regulations, 2 CFR part 200 as amended by 2 CFR part 910.
( c ) DOE shall select evaluators on the basis of their professional qualifications and expertise. Evaluators shall be required to comply with all applicable DOE rules or directives concerning the use of outside evaluators.
( d ) DOE shall evaluate new and renewal applications based on the following criteria which are listed in descending order of importance: ( 1 ) Scientific and/or technical merit or the educational benefits of the project;
( 2 ) Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach;
( 3 ) Competency of applicant's personnel and adequacy of proposed resources;
( 4 ) Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget; and
( 5 ) Other appropriate factors established and set forth by ER in a notice of availability or in a specific solicitation.
( e ) Also, DOE shall consider, as part of the evaluation, other available advice or information as well as program policy factors such as ensuring an appropriate balance among the program areas listed in § 605.5(b) of this part.
( f ) In addition to the evaluation criteria set forth in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, DOE shall consider the recipient's performance under the existing award during the evaluation of a renewal application.
( g ) Selection of applications for award will be based upon the findings of the technical evaluations, the importance and relevance of the proposed application to SC's mission, and fund availability. Cost reasonableness and realism will also be considered to the extent appropriate.
( h ) After the selection of an application, DOE may, if necessary, enter into negotiation with an applicant. Such negotiations are not a commitment that DOE will make an award.
[57 FR 40583, Sept. 3, 1992, as amended at 79 FR 76046, Dec. 19, 2014]
From: "Milet, Meredith (CDPH-EHIB)" <Meredith.Milet@cdph.ca.gov>
 

To: Debbie LoweJR9/USEPNUS@EPA
 

Cc "Rojas-Cheatham, Tivo (CDPH-EHIB)" <Tivo.RojasCheatham@cdph.ca.gov>
 

Date: 02117/2011 09:36 AM
 

Subject: RE: Question about asthma data in Kettleman City Report
 

Hi Debbie, 

Thanks again for catching that mistake and we confirmed that there was an error. The rate of asthmarelated ED visits for Kettleman City (2005-2007) is actually 35.7 per 10,000. Or, see below the corrected 

paragraph. The number (23 visits) is correct and all of the other statistics in this paragraph were doublechecked and found to be correct. 

Data on asthma ED visits are available from 2005-2007. During that time, there were 23 

asthma-related ED visits among residents ofKettleman City (zip code 93239), or an 

annual rate of35.7 visits per 10,000 residents. During this same time period (2005-2007), 

there were 107 asthma-related ED visits among residents ofAvenal (zip code 93204), or 

an annual rate of26.3 visits per 10,000 residents. The corresponding rate for Kings 

County (61.5 visits per 10,000 residents), San Joaquin Valley (52.1) and California 

overall (43.6) were also higher. 

Let us know if you need any further clarification. 

Best, 

Meredith 

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* 

Meredith Milet, MPH 

Epidemiologist - California Breathing 

Environmental Health Investigations Branch 

California Department ofPublic Health 

850 Marina Bay Parkway 

Building P, 3rd Floor 

Richmond, CA 94804 

510-620-3634 

Meredith.Milet@cdph.ca.gov
1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1736

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Christopher Levell McFadden, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 21, 2008

Filed: May 1, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher McFadden appeals from the district court’s1

 order denying his

motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on

Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG), which

reduced the base offense levels in USSG § 2D1.1(c) based on the quantity of cocaine

base (crack).
-2-

McFadden pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more

than 50 grams of a mixture containing cocaine base and to using a communication

facility to distribute cocaine base. He was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment.

Although McFadden’s original drug quantity-driven sentencing range was 188

to 235 months’ imprisonment, he faced a 108-month statutory maximum (five-year

maximum on the conspiracy charge, see 18 U.S.C. § 371, and a four-year maximum

on the use of communication facility, see 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)(d)), which became his

guidelines sentencing range, see USSG § 5G1.1(a) (“Where the statutorily authorized

maximum sentence is less than the minimum of the applicable guideline range, the

statutorily authorized maximum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.”).

A two-level decrease based on drug quantity would result in a sentencing range

of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment, with the result that McFadden’s newly

calculated guideline range would still be limited by USSG § 5G1.1(a) and would

remain unchanged at 108 months. McFadden is thus not entitled to a reduction under

Amendment 706. See USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (“A reduction in the defendant’s term

of imprisonment . . . is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if–[a]n

amendment listed in subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering the

defendant’s applicable guideline range.”).

The district court’s judgment denying McFadden any relief pursuant to the

retroactive amendments is summarily affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

______________________________
#### GEIGER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 3, 1915.)

Action by Charles Geiger against the New York Telephone Company.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Case 2:06-cv-00787-MHT-SRW Document 1 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00787-MHT-SRW Document 1 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00787-MHT-SRW Document 1 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 603 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 603

   Recognizing November 25, 2017, as ``Small Business Saturday'' and 
supporting efforts to increase awareness of the value of locally owned 
                           small businesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 2, 2017

Mr. Chabot (for himself, Ms. Velazquez, Ms. Adams, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Blum, 
   Mr. Brat, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. 
 Comer, Mr. Espaillat, Mr. Evans, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Miss Gonzalez-Colon 
of Puerto Rico, Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Knight, 
 Mr. Lawson of Florida, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Marshall, Mrs. Murphy of 
 Florida, Mr. Norman, Mrs. Radewagen, Mr. Schneider, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. 
 Carson of Indiana, Mr. Delaney, Ms. Hanabusa, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, 
     Ms. McCollum, Mr. Takano, Ms. Slaughter, and Mr. Swalwell of 
 California) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Recognizing November 25, 2017, as ``Small Business Saturday'' and 
supporting efforts to increase awareness of the value of locally owned 
                           small businesses.

Whereas there are over 29,600,000 small businesses in the United States;
Whereas small businesses represent 99.9 percent of all businesses with employees 
        in the United States;
Whereas small businesses employ nearly 48 percent of the employees in the 
        private sector in the United States;
Whereas small businesses pay 41.1 percent of the total payroll of the employees 
        in the private sector in the United States;
Whereas small businesses constitute nearly 98 percent of firms exporting goods;
Whereas small businesses generated 1,400,000 net new jobs; and
Whereas November 25, 2017, is an appropriate day to designate as ``Small 
        Business Saturday'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes and encourages the observance of ``Small 
        Business Saturday''; and
            (2) supports efforts--
                    (A) to encourage consumers to shop locally; and
                    (B) to increase awareness of the value of locally 
                owned small businesses and the impact of locally owned 
                small businesses on the economy of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
§ 455.135 State liaison, monitoring, and reporting. Each State shall be responsible for: ( a ) Consulting with eligible institutions and coordinating agencies representing such institutions in the development of its State Plan;
( b ) Notifying eligible institutions and coordinating agencies of the content of the approved State Plan and any amendment to a State Plan;
( c ) Notifying each applicant how the applicant's building or measure ranked among other applications, and whether and to what extent its application will be recommended for funding or if not to be recommended for funding, the specific reasons(s) therefor;
( d ) Certifying that each institution has given its assurance that it is willing and able to participate on the basis of any changes in amounts recommended for that institution in the State ranking pursuant to § 455.131;
( e ) Reporting requirements pursuant to § 455.113; and
( f ) Direct program oversight and monitoring of the activities for which grants are awarded as defined in the State Plan. States shall immediately notify DOE of any noncompliance or indication thereof.
August 11, 2015

Subject: Petition for 333 Exemption for Idalia Photography, LLC (wedding videography) for a DJI 

Phantom 3 Professional small UAS

I am writing to petition for a 333 Exemption for a wedding photography business that my wife 

(Alexandra Peterson) and I (Jay Peterson) operate, called Idalia Photography, LLC. I am petitioning for 

the specific use of aerial videography using a DJI Phantom 3 Professional UAS that I recently purchased.

The specific conditions under which I would solely operate the UAS are as follows:

 Approximately 50-150 feet in altitude within a 1,000 foot range in order to document the venue 

with the couple’s presence at said venue on that specific day (as opposed to stock footage).

 Our company currently contracts approximately 10-15 video weddings per calendar year, and I 

would like to operate the UAS at all those events at which I do videography, conditions 

permitting, specifically at the wedding venues and sometimes at local parks where couples may 

have wedding portraits done.

 Flights at wedding venues would be approximately 5-10 minutes long, depending on time 

allotted exclusively for video at the end of portrait sessions.

 I would like to operate my small UAS for spring 2016 weddings and begin promoting my services 

to reflect that.

 The wedding videography industry is a growing one, and the addition of aerial videography 

greatly enhances the service to couples in a minimally disruptive way. Again, flight times would 

be approximately 5-10 minutes on private venue grounds or at public settings that would be 

restricted to the immediate vicinity of the wedding couple.

Safety

 I fully understand and comply with the federal restrictions of 400 feet and 5-mile radius from 

airports, as well as over sensitive infrastructure, as I now fly with my UAS recreationally, logging 

practice time at my local park. 

 Furthermore, I understand commercial restrictions of 200 feet under the 333 Exemption.

 Furthermore, I would be aware of any temporary flight restrictions issued in the vicinity of a 

wedding venue.

 Furthermore, I would not fly the UAS over people, animals, roads, buildings, residences, or other 

sensitive areas.

 I make myself aware of park regulations, per our company’s routine checks on permits and 

insurance requirements when photographing/videographing public settings and private venue 

grounds.

 Our company is insured with a $1,00,000 policy.

 I have subscribed to FAA communications and I attended a recent FAA safety seminar in Wall 

Township on August 5, 2015, to learn more about safety issues in the context of the growth of 
UAS’s. I had learned of the 333 Exemption on the FAA website when I purchased my DJI 

Phantom, but the seminar informed me of the specifics of what is required for 

business/commercial purposes and interpretations of such.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jay Peterson

Idalia Photography, LLC
Editorial Note on Part 35
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 35.645 Periodic spot-checks for gamma stereotactic radiosurgery units. ( a ) A licensee authorized to use a gamma stereotactic radiosurgery unit for medical use shall perform spot-checks of each gamma stereotactic radiosurgery facility and on each unit— ( 1 ) Monthly;
( 2 ) Before the first use of the unit on a given day; and
( 3 ) After each source installation.
( b ) A licensee shall— ( 1 ) Perform the measurements required by paragraph (a) of this section in accordance with written procedures established by the authorized medical physicist. That individual need not actually perform the spot check measurements.
( 2 ) Have the authorized medical physicist review the results of each spot-check within 15 days. The authorized medical physicist shall notify the licensee as soon as possible in writing of the results of each spot-check.
( c ) To satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, spot-checks must, at a minimum— ( 1 ) Assure proper operation of— ( i ) Treatment table retraction mechanism, using backup battery power or hydraulic backups with the unit off;
( ii ) Helmet microswitches;
( iii ) Emergency timing circuits; and
( iv ) Stereotactic frames and localizing devices (trunnions).
( 2 ) Determine— ( i ) The output for one typical set of operating conditions measured with the dosimetry system described in § 35.630(b);
( ii ) The difference between the measurement made in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section and the anticipated output, expressed as a percentage of the anticipated output (*i.e.*, the value obtained at last full calibration corrected mathematically for physical decay);
( iii ) Source output against computer calculation;
( iv ) Timer accuracy and linearity over the range of use;
( v ) On-off error; and
( vi ) Trunnion centricity.
( d ) To satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section, spot-checks must assure proper operation of— ( 1 ) Electrical interlocks at each gamma stereotactic radiosurgery room entrance;
( 2 ) Source exposure indicator lights on the gamma stereotactic radiosurgery unit, on the control console, and in the facility;
( 3 ) Viewing and intercom systems;
( 4 ) Timer termination;
( 5 ) Radiation monitors used to indicate room exposures; and
( 6 ) Emergency off buttons.
( e ) A licensee shall arrange for the repair of any system identified in paragraph (c) of this section that is not operating properly as soon as possible.
( f ) If the results of the checks required in paragraph (d) of this section indicate the malfunction of any system, a licensee shall lock the control console in the off position and not use the unit except as may be necessary to repair, replace, or check the malfunctioning system.
( g ) A licensee shall retain a record of each check required by paragraphs (c) and (d) and a copy of the procedures required by paragraph (b) of this section in accordance with § 35.2645.