alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CITY OF NEW YORK v. LINSON et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 27, 1914.)

Action by the City of New York against John Linson and others.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless appellant comply with terms stated in order. Order filed. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1081.
#### McLAUGHLIN, Respondent, v. McLAUGHLIN REAL ESTATE CO., et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

May 8, 1914.)

Action by Leonora McLaughlin against the McLaughlin Real Estate Company and others.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with $10 costs. See, also, 147 N. Y. Supp. 959; 148 N. Y. Supp. 1128.
### Public Service ofNew Hampshire

July 26, 2013 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL


### Jezebele Alicea-Virella Environmental Engineer EPA- Office of Water/OST/EAD Mail Code: 4303T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Ms. Alicea: PSNH EnergyPark 780 No.Commercial Street, Manchester, NH 03101 Public Service Company ofNew Hampshire P.O. Box330 Manchester, NH 03105-0330 (603) 669-4000 The Northeast Utilities System



### In response to your email dated July 24, 2012 (attached), I am requesting as an officer of this company the release of confidential business information related to Merrimack, Newington and Schiller Stations consistent with the scope of the request for this information we made electronically on June 19, 2013. "I certify underpenalty oflaw that I 

### am a responsible corporate official orhis/herauthorized representative ofPublic Service Company ofNew Hampshire and

### am authorized to request confidential business information on behalfofmy company. I certify that Public Service Company ofNew Hampshire is the majority ownerorthe operatorfor each facility (and for each unit at each facility) for which we are requesting confidential business information. I 

### am aware that there maybe significantpenalties forsubmitting false information including the possibility of fines and imprisonment, pursuant to 18 U.S. 

### C. § 1001. "



### A prompt response would be appreciated. Please forward all requested information to: Allan Palmer Public Service Company of New Hampshire 780 No. Commercial Street Manchester, NH 03101

WHS:acm Attachment Yours truly,



# ~1£(//:n~ Vice President Generation-PSNH
PGI 242.7203 Review procedures.       (c)  *Disposition of findings*.          (2)  *Initial determination*.          (ii)(A)  Within 10 days of receiving the report, if the contracting officer makes a determination that there is a significant deficiency, the contracting officer should provide an initial determination of deficiencies and a copy of the report to the contractor and require the contractor to submit a written response.          (C)  *Evaluation of contractor's response*.  Within 30 days of receiving the contractor’s response, the contracting officer, in consultation with the auditor or cognizant functional specialist, should evaluate the contractor’s response and make a final determination.          (3)  *Final Determination*.          (ii)(A)  *Monitoring contractor's corrective action.*  The contracting officer, with the assistance of the auditor, shall monitor the contractor's progress in correcting deficiencies.  If the contractor fails to make adequate progress, the contracting officer shall take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the contractor corrects the deficiencies.  Examples of actions the contracting officer can take are:  disapprove the contractor's MMAS; bringing the issue to the attention of higher level management; implementing or increasing the withholding in accordance with 252.242-7005, Contractor Business Systems, if applicable; and recommending non-award of potential contracts.          (B)  *Correction of significant deficiencies*.          (*1*)  When the contractor notifies the contracting officer that the contractor has corrected the significant deficiencies, the contracting officer shall request that the auditor review the correction to determine if the deficiencies have been resolved.          (*2*)  The contracting officer shall determine if the contractor has corrected the deficiencies.          (*3*)  If the contracting officer determines the contractor has corrected the deficiencies, the contracting officer's notification shall be sent to the auditor; payment office; appropriate action officers responsible for reporting past performance at the requiring activities; and each contracting and contract administration office having substantial business with the contractor as applicable.    **Parent topic:** PGI 242.72 -CONTRACTOR MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-13-0945 SAT Date: 10/25/2013

Print Date: 4/1/2014

Related cases :

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 2

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 1 1 PMN 2 1 1 Hyd Pdt

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Exposure based testing (health): XB level testing submitted with PMN Ecotox: Yes
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Hyd Pdt slow Keywords : Keywords: MUTA; IRR-E,MM,L (UNCERT); AQUATOX Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-13-0945-46 FATE: Estimations for hydrolysis product

log Fish BCF = 0.50 (E) log Fish BAF = -0.04 (E)

Hydrolysis Half-life = hrBP = 307 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = PMN 90-99 via hydrolysis; then Hyd Pdt 0-25 via sorption; OECD 301B(Mod Sturm CO2 ev): 42.63%/28d NRB; OECD111(Hydrolysis): t1/2( p H5,7,9):6.1-15 mins/2.3-10 hrs/3.2-14 mins Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = Hyd Pdt mo Sorption to soils/sediments = Hyd Pdt moderate - strong PBT Potential: PMN P1B1; Hyd Pdt P2B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = Hyd Pdt slow

Health : Health Summary: Expect moderate absorption via all routes ( p che m ). Concern for mutagenicity based on submitted test data. Uncertain concern for irritation to eyes, lungs, and mucous membranes based on the reactivity of the alkoxysilane moiety. Test data indicate that the PMN substance is not irritating to the eye. Test Data: (-) Salmonella with and without activation; (-) E. coli with and without activation; (+) in a mouse lymphoma assay with activation, (-) without activation; (-) oral rat micronucleus assay; rat oral LD0 = 2000 mg/kg; rat dermal LD0 = 2000 mg/kg; no skin irritation in rabbits; no eye irritation in rabbits; no skin sensitization in guinea p igs using the Buehler assay; rat 15-day oral NOEL = 1000 mg/kg (highest dose tested); rat OECD 422 oral NOEL = 1000 mg/kg (highest dose tested) for both parental and developmental/reproductive toxicity

Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 10.7 daphnid 48-h LC50 16.2 green algal 96-h EC50 3.7 fish

_ chronic value 0.776 daphnid

_ chronic value 0.576
algal

_ chronic value 2.5
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for Alkoxy Silanes; SAR chemical class = Alkoxy Silanes; MW 274; p H7; with unknown MP(P); effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; DW hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and DW TOC <2.0 mg/L;Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 58

SARs Alkoxy Silane SAR Class Alkoxy Silane Ecotox Category Alkoxysilanes
Ecotox Factors Comments:
SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
Editorial Note on Part 420
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 420 appear at 64 FR 46114, Aug. 24, 1999.

§ 420.12 State matching contribution. ( a ) Each State shall provide cash, in kind contributions, or both for SEP activities in an amount totaling not less than 20 percent of the financial assistance allocated to the State under § 420.11(b).
( b ) Cash and in-kind contributions used to meet this State matching requirement are subject to the limitations on expenditures described in § 420.18(a), but are not subject to the 20 percent limitation in § 420.18(b).
( c ) Nothing in this section shall be read to require a match for petroleum violation escrow funds used under this subpart.
[61 FR 35895, July 8, 1996, as amended at 64 FR 46114, Aug. 24, 1999]
22.001 Definition.    The designated Agency Labor Advisor for acquisition related issues is DLA Acquisition Compliance, Policy and Pricing Division Procurement Analyst identified on the List of Agency Labor Advisors at www.wdol.gov                       . **Parent topic:** PART 22 – APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 133 

Expressing support for designation of April 11 as ‘‘National Pet Adoption 

Day’’ and the month of April as ‘‘National Pet Adoption Month’’ to 

highlight the important role pets play in the lives of United States 

citizens. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2017 

Mr. WILLIAMS (for himself, Mr. VEASEY, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. FARENTHOLD, 

Mr. JONES, Mr. CICILLINE, Ms. TITUS, Mr. NADLER, Mr. JOYCE of 

Ohio, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. DONOVAN, Mr. 

BLUMENAUER, Mr. COHEN, Mr. ROSKAM, Ms. MOORE, and Mr. FASO) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of April 11 as ‘‘National 

Pet Adoption Day’’ and the month of April as ‘‘National 

Pet Adoption Month’’ to highlight the important role 

pets play in the lives of United States citizens. 

Whereas April 11 would be an appropriate date to designate 

as ‘‘National Pet Adoption Day’’; and 

Whereas the month of April would be an appropriate month 

to designate as ‘‘National Pet Adoption Month’’: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 133 IH 

1 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘National Pet 

2 Adoption Day’’ and ‘‘National Pet Adoption Month’’ 

3 to highlight the important role pets play in the lives 

4 of United States citizens; 

5 (2) requests that the President issue a procla6 mation calling upon the people of the United States 

7 to observe ‘‘National Pet Adoption Day’’ and ‘‘Na8 tional Pet Adoption Month’’ with appropriate cere9 monies and activities; and 

10 (3) encourages the people of the United States 

11 to adopt pets from local animal shelters and rescues. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
|   |  (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 results of operations of the Company. |

|  Date:  May 9, 2011  |  /s/ Kent M. Adams                          |
|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                     |  Kent M. Adams                                   |
|                                     |  President, Director and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                     |                                                  |
|                                     |                                                  |
|  Date:  May 9, 2011       |  /s/ James A. Duensing                      |
|                                     |  James A. Duensing                               |
|                                     |  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial    |
|                                     |  Officer                                         |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                 5
<CIK>                                            0000764763
<NAME>                   ELECTRONIC BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                              1
<CURRENCY>                                              USD

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                               27,566
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       400,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (147,136)
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    294,087
<PP&E>                                            3,652,497
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (2,390,161)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3,516,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4,778,030
<BONDS>                                             786,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                       1,650,311
<COMMON>                                             14,004
<OTHER-SE>                                       (3,711,927)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3,516,418
<SALES>                                             915,258
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    915,258
<CGS>                                               672,812
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       908,272
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   53,032
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (718,858)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (827,643)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.06)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Collins, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 80]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Ambrecht, J.), rendered February 6, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of arson in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree, tampering with physical evidence and conspiracy in the fourth degree (two counts), and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 262/s to 32 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant voluntarily absented himself, and thus waived his right to be present at the rendition of the verdict *(see People v Parker,*57 NY2d 136 [1982]; *People v Epps,*37 NY2d 343, 346-347 [1975], *cert denied*423 US 999 [1975]). The court had previously informed defendant of his right to be present throughout the trial, and advised him that the trial would continue in his absence if he refused to come to the courtroom. Furthermore, when defense counsel advised the court that defendant “decline [d]” to come out of the pens, this constituted a deliberate absence, thereby forfeiting the right to be present *(see People v Sanchez,*65 NY2d 436 [1985]). Under these circumstances, by refusing to attend, defendant waived and/or forfeited his right to be present for whatever proceedings would take place in his absence. Therefore, it was not necessary that defendant be made aware that the deliberating jury had reached a verdict. In any event, the record supports the inference that he was aware of that fact when, after conferring with counsel, he declined to be present.

The court’s *Molineux*ruling *(People v Molineux,*168 NY 264 [1901]) was an appropriate exercise of discretion as the evidence of uncharged crimes was probative of defendant’s motive and intent and provided background information explaining the sequence of events and defendant’s increasing animosity *435towards the victim *(see e.g. People v Mehmeti,*279 AD2d 420 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 832 [2001]). Any prejudice was outweighed by the highly probative nature of the uncharged crimes and was alleviated by the court’s suitable limiting instructions.

The court properly denied defendant’s request to submit the lesser included offense of conspiracy in the fifth degree as there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defense, that he committed the lesser but not the greater crime *(see People v Negron,*91 NY2d 788 [1998]).

We find no basis to reduce the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 51
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

§ 51.54 Environmental report—manufacturing license. ( a ) Each applicant for a manufacturing license under subpart F of part 52 of this chapter shall submit with its application a separate document entitled, “Applicant's Environmental Report—Manufacturing License.” The environmental report must address the costs and benefits of severe accident mitigation design alternatives, and the bases for not incorporating severe accident mitigation design alternatives into the design of the reactor to be manufactured. The environmental report need not address the environmental impacts associated with manufacturing the reactor under the manufacturing license, the benefits and impacts of utilizing the reactor in a nuclear power plant, or an evaluation of alternative energy sources.
( b ) Each applicant for an amendment to a manufacturing license shall submit with its application a separate document entitled, “Applicant's Supplemental Environmental Report—Amendment to Manufacturing License.” The environmental report must address whether the design change which is the subject of the proposed amendment either renders a severe accident mitigation design alternative previously rejected in an environmental assessment to become cost beneficial, or results in the identification of new severe accident mitigation design alternatives that may be reasonably incorporated into the design of the manufactured reactor. The environmental report need not address the environmental impacts associated with manufacturing the reactor under the manufacturing license.
[72 FR 49513, Aug. 28, 2007]
#### SULLIVAN v. ROSSON et al.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.

June, 1914.)

1. Executors and Administrators (§ 430*)—Actions—Personal Liability.

A forbearance by plaintiff to enforce his mortgage was a sufficient consideration for an extension contract by which executors agreed to pay the debt, so as to render them personally liable for a deficiency.

[Ed. Note.-—-For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. §§ 1683-1688; Dec. Dig. § 430.*]

2. Executors and Administrators (§ 221*)—Personal Liability oe Exiecutor.

The mere signing of a note by executors is prima facie evidence of assets in their hands sufficient to pay it, and they are personally liable unless they show that such assets are insufficient.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. §§ 901-903%, 1858, 1861-1863, 1865, 1866, 1871-1874, 1876; Dec. Dig. § 221.*]

Action by Hannah Sullivan to foreclose a mortgage against Thomas Rosson and others. Judgment for plaintiff.

Henry J. & Frederick E. Goldsmith, of New York City (Otto A. Samuels, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Andrew S. Fraser, of New York City, for defendants.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

GIEGERICH, J.

[1,2] Upon the evidence I have no hesitation in finding that the extension agreement was signed in duplicate by all the parties thereto, and that as so signed one copy thereof was delivered to and received by the defendants and the other copy was retained by the plaintiff. It seems plain 'that the defendant executors are personally liable upon the extension agreement. It was abundantly shown-by the evidence that forbearance by the plaintiff was the consideration for the agreement, and that is a sufficient consideration to support the personal liability of the defendant executors. Bank of Troy v. Topping, 9 Wend. 273. In the present case the evidence shows that the plaintiff refrained from proceeding to an immediate foreclosure upon the assurance of the defendant executors that they would pay the installment amounts as they became due under the extension agreement. Furthermore, there was a stipulation that the testator left personal assets in excess of the amount sued for, and that his equity in real estate was also in excess of that amount. It has been held that the mere signing of a note by executors is prima facie evidence of assets in their hands sufficient to pay it, and that they are personally liable unless they show that such assets were insufficient. Bank of Troy v. Topping, 13 Wend. 557; Jenkins v. Phillips, 41 App. Div. 389, 58 N. Y. Supp. 788.

There should be judgment for the plaintiff, with costs and the customary additional allowance. Submit, with proof of service, requests for findings within two days after the publication of this memorandum.
§ 20.1001 Purpose. ( a ) The regulations in this part establish standards for protection against ionizing radiation resulting from activities conducted under licenses issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. These regulations are issued under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended.
( b ) It is the purpose of the regulations in this part to control the receipt, possession, use, transfer, and disposal of licensed material by any licensee in such a manner that the total dose to an individual (including doses resulting from licensed and unlicensed radioactive material and from radiation sources other than background radiation) does not exceed the standards for protection against radiation prescribed in the regulations in this part. However, nothing in this part shall be construed as limiting actions that may be necessary to protect health and safety.