alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Mary Gilberti, Respondent, v. Joanne Garment Manufacturing Co. et al., Appellants, and De Kalb Coat Corp. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the employer, Joanne Garment Manufacturing Co., and its carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board on the ground that there is no substantial evidence that claimant’s disability resulted from an occupational disease within the scope of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (§3, subd. 2, par. 29). The board has found that the evidence established that claimant, a sewing machine operator, is suffering from an occupational disease “in the nature of an enlargement and traumatic arthritis of the metacarpal-carpal joint of the left thumb”. While there is strong countervailing medical evidence that claimant’s disability is not attributable to an occupational disease but instead to an earlier accidental injury sustained while working for another employer, we cannot say that the instant record is without substantial medical evidence as to causation to support the board’s determination, albeit that most of it is admittedly weak and contradictory, and accordingly the board’s decision must be affirmed (e.g. *Matter of Rados*v. *Woodlaum Water Supply Dist.,*31 A D 2d 879). Having decided that it could properly find causation, the board, considering that a distinctive feature of claimant’s job and common to all jobs of that type is the constant application of pressure between the thumb and index finger or other fingers, could determine that claimant’s disability was an occupational disease within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law *(Matter of Detenbeck*v. *General Motors Corp.,*309 N. Y. 558; *Matter of Goyer*v. *Fred K. Blanchard, Inc.,*25 A D 2d 892; *Matter of Elkin*v. *D. & J. Cleaners,*25 A D 2d 790). Decision affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents filing briefs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.
File Name: Northeast model external scope test Option A.lim

Author: Robert Johnston, Clark University

Created: January 18, 2012

Purpose: LIMDEP program for external scope test of Option A of the Northeast

stated preference survey.

RESET $

READ ; File ="D:\Rob Johnston\LIMDEP Data\NE_model_data_110411b.xls" ; Format =

XLS ; Names $

CALC ; Ran(12345) $

CREATE ; If(option=0) Neither=1; (Else) Neither=0 $

CREATE ; cost = cost$

REJECT; choice = -999 $

REJECT; option=2 $

REJECT; option=0 $

REJECT; fish_sav<95 $

DSTAT ; Rhs = choice, neither, com_fish, fish_pop, fish_sav, aquatic, cost

$

RESET $

READ ; File ="D:\Rob Johnston\LIMDEP Data\NE_model_data_110411b.xls" ; Format =

XLS ; Names $

CALC ; Ran(12345) $

CREATE ; If(option=0) Neither=1; (Else) Neither=0 $

CREATE ; cost = cost$

REJECT; choice = -999 $

REJECT; option=2 $

REJECT; option=0 $

REJECT; fish_sav=95 $

REJECT; fish_sav=5 $

DSTAT ; Rhs = choice, neither, com_fish, fish_pop, fish_sav, aquatic, cost

$

RESET $

READ ; File ="D:\Rob Johnston\LIMDEP Data\NE_model_data_110411b.xls" ; Format =

XLS ; Names $

CALC ; Ran(12345) $

CREATE ; If(option=0) Neither=1; (Else) Neither=0 $

CREATE ; cost = cost$

REJECT; choice = -999 $

REJECT; option=2 $

REJECT; option=0 $

REJECT; fish_sav>5 $

DSTAT ; Rhs = choice, neither, com_fish, fish_pop, fish_sav, aquatic, cost

$

Page 1
#### § 215.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to set forth certain requirements pursuant to section 13 of the Federal Energy Administration Act to furnish information concerning foreign crude oil supply arrangements. The authority set out in this section is not exclusive.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Koontz, Bray and Senior Judge Hodges 

ALONZO E. MURPHY 

v. Record No. 2314-94-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

FRANK IX & SONS, INC. MAY 23, 1995 

AND 

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Edmund R. Michie; Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, Rasmussen & 

Tweel, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (R. Ferrell Newman; Glenn S. Phelps; Thompson, 

Smithers, Newman & Wade, on brief), for appellees. 

 Alonzo E. Murphy contends that the Workers' Compensation 

Commission erred in finding that (1) it could not award permanent 

partial disability benefits because Murphy was entitled to and 

was receiving temporary total disability benefits under an open 

award; and (2) Murphy failed to establish entitlement to 

permanent partial disability benefits because he failed to prove 

that he had reached maximum medical improvement. Upon reviewing 

the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this 

appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the 

commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 Code § 65.2-503(F)(1) provides that "[c]ompensation awarded 

pursuant to this section shall be in addition to all other 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

compensation and shall be payable after payments for temporary 

total incapacity pursuant to § 65.2-500." (Emphasis added.) 

 The commission denied Murphy an award of permanent partial 

disability benefits, finding that his case for permanency was 

premature because he was still receiving temporary total 

disability benefits under an open award. Based upon the language 

of Code § 65.2-503(F)(1), we cannot say as a matter of law that 

the commission erred in finding that Murphy's claim for permanent 

partial disability was premature. Moreover, pursuant to Code 

§ 65.2-708(A), Murphy has "thirty-six months from the last day 

for which compensation was paid" for filing a claim payable under 

§ 65.2-503. 

 Because our holding disposes of this appeal, we will not 

address the second question presented by Murphy. 

 For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 55
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 55 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

§ 55.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval. ( a ) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*). The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in this part under control number 3150-0018.
( b ) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in §§ 55.11, 55.25, 55.27, 55.31, 55.35, 55.40, 55.41, 55.43, 55.45, 55.47, 55.53, 55.57, and 55.59.
( c ) This part contains information collection requirements in addition to those approved under the control number specified in paragraph (a) of this section. These information collection requirements and the control numbers under which they are approved are as follows: ( 1 ) In §§ 55.23, 55.25, 55.27, 55.31, NRC Form 396 is approved under control number 3150-0024.
( 2 ) In §§ 55.31, 55.35, 55.47, and 55.57, NRC Form 398 is approved under control number 3150-0090.
[62 FR 52188, Oct. 6, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 19878, Apr. 23, 1999; 66 FR 52667, Oct. 17, 2001; 67 FR 67100, Nov. 4, 2002]
PGI 210.002 Procedures.

(e)(ii) Contracting officers are encouraged to retain information on potential offerors that express an

interest in an acquisition, in order to solicit feedback in instances when only one offer is received on

a competitive solicitation (see PGI 215.371-2 ).

(iii) Contracting officers should ensure that the contract file includes—

(A) The methods used to conduct market research;

(B) The timeframe in which market research was conducted;

(C) The analysis of the capabilities of the potential sources that were identified during market

research; and

(D) Any conclusion(s) reached as a result of market research analysis.

Parent topic: PGI Part 210 - MARKET RESEARCH
# EUR-Lex - 31974R3137 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31974R3137

**Regulation (Euratom) No 3137/74 of the Commission of 12 December 1974 amending Commission Regulation No 17/66/Euratom of 29 November 1966 exempting the transfer of small quantities of ores, source materials and special fissile materials from the rules of the chapter on supplies **

*
Official Journal L 333 , 13/12/1974 P. 0027 - 0027 Greek special edition: Chapter 12 Volume 1 P. 0072 Spanish special edition: Chapter 12 Volume 2 P. 0028 Portuguese special edition Chapter 12 Volume 2 P. 0028 Finnish special edition: Chapter 12 Volume 1 P. 0064 Swedish special edition: Chapter 12 Volume 1 P. 0064 *

REGULATION (EURATOM) No 3137/74 OF THE COMMISSION of 12 December 1974 amending Commission Regulation No 17/66/Euratom of 29 November 1966 exempting the transfer of small quantities of ores, source materials and special fissile materials from the rules of the chapter on supplies

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 74 thereof;

Whereas the volume of research involving small quantities of special fissile materials has increased both within the Community and in countries outside the Community since Regulation No 17/66/Euratom entered into force on 29 November 1966;

Whereas the Community is able, without prejudice to the supply position of consumers within the Community, to contribute to the development of research in many different fields through the supply of special fissile materials produced in its Member States;

Whereas, therefore, the supply position permits the extension of the rule on exemption in Article 74 to cover special fissile materials produced within the Community,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 2 of Commission Regulation No 17/66/Euratom of 29 November 1966 relating to the exemption of small quantities of ores, source materials and special fissile materials from the rules of the chapter on supplies, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 28 December 1966, page 4057/66, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"With regard to special fissile materials, transfers within, imports into and exports from the Community shall be exempt from the provisions of Chapter VI of the Treaty provided that the quantities involved, referred to the elemental form, do not exceed 200 grammes of uranium-235, uranium-233 or plutonium in any one transaction up to an annual limit of 1 000 grammes of any of the substances per user. In the case of imports and exports this shall apply subject to the provisions of agreements for cooperation concluded by the Community with third countries."

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 December 1974.

For the Commission

The President

François-Xavier ORTOLI
From: Katie Coughlin [mailto:kcoughlin@lbl.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 3:29 PM 

To: Richard Parker 

Cc: rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@LVMetals.com; john.caskey@nema.org; 

jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com; Cymbalsky, John; adelaski@standardsASAP.org; 

Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; 

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; jhodge@howard.com; mhyland@appanet.org; dave.millure@metglas.com; 

snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; 

Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com; artrosenfeld@gmail.com; srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org; 

robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; kwinder@mleainc.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org; 

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com; 

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; bsmith@federalpacific.com; 

greg.coulter405@gmail.com; jmauer@standardsasap.org; Cohen, Daniel; 

Aaron.Meyers@CooperIndustries.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org; jrossetti@mlgw.org; cabolduc@lbl.gov; 

Brian Coffey; Michael Rivest; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; Caitlin Johnson; Zhimei Luo; Marchetti, Emily 

(CONTR); charlied@uus.org; DYoung@energy-solution.com; James.Lass@cleco.com; 

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; phopkinson@hvolt.com; Matthew Nardotti; Raba, Jim; Savitz, Maxine 

(EMAB); tpetrosino@carolina.rr.com; chris.brown@cogentpowerinc.com; 

ted.johnstone@cogentpowerinc.com; frank.guilbault@cogentpowerinc.com; ned.efbrush@gmail.com; 

dbrender@cda.copper.org; chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com; 

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com; 

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com 

Subject: MVDT shipments 

Hello all, 

The draft Chapter 9 of the TSD, with shipments data from 2009, is attached. The table we looked 

at today is table 9.3.3 on page 7. 

regards, 

Katie 

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR) 

<Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov> wrote: 

When: Thursday, November 17, 2011 1:00 PM‐5:00 PM (GMT‐05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: Webinar and Phone

  

Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.

  

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

  

Dear Colleagues,

  

This event is to save the time slot on your calendar based on our discussion at yesterday's meeting.

Later today further information will be sent regarding the registration information for our November 17

and November 21 webinars. After registering you will get the link for the webinar and a toll free

number.

  

Please call with questions or concerns.  

  

Very Respectfully,
Jeremiah Freeman

202‐431‐4243 (cell)

202‐586‐1867 (office)
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS TE-10 Photosynthetic Response DataThe Boreal Ecosystem-Atmospheric Study (BOREAS) TE-10 (Terrestrial Ecology) team collected several data sets in support of its efforts to characterize and interpret information on the gas exchange, reflectance, transmittance, chlorophyll content, carbon content, hydrogen content, nitrogen content, and photosynthetic response of boreal vegetation. This data set contains measurements of quantitative parameters and leaf photosynthetic response to increases in light conducted in the SSA during the growing seasons of 1994 and 1996 using an oxygen electrode system. Leaf photosynthetic responses were not collected in 1996. The data are stored in tabular ASCII files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010004229Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Papagno, Andrea*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Middleton, Elizabeth*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Sullivan, Joseph*(Maryland Univ. College Park, MD United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2000-109891/VOL163NAS 1.15:209891/VOL163Rept-2000-03136-0/VOL163Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010004229.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
Editorial Note on Part 61
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 61 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 61.13 Technical analyses. The specific technical information must also include the following analyses needed to demonstrate that the performance objectives of subpart C of this part will be met: ( a ) Pathways analyzed in demonstrating protection of the general population from releases of radioactivity must include air, soil, groundwater, surface water, plant uptake, and exhumation by burrowing animals. The analyses must clearly identify and differentiate between the roles performed by the natural disposal site characteristics and design features in isolating and segregating the wastes. The analyses must clearly demonstrate that there is reasonable assurance that the exposure to humans from the release of radioactivity will not exceed the limits set forth in § 61.41.
( b ) Analyses of the protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion must include demonstration that there is reasonable assurance the waste classification and segregation requirements will be met and that adequate barriers to inadvertent intrusion will be provided.
( c ) Analyses of the protection of individuals during operations must include assessments of expected exposures due to routine operations and likely accidents during handling, storage, and disposal of waste. The analyses must provide reasonable assurance that exposures will be controlled to meet the requirements of part 20 of this chapter.
( d ) Analyses of the long-term stability of the disposal site and the need for ongoing active maintenance after closure must be based upon analyses of active natural processes such as erosion, mass wasting, slope failure, settlement of wastes and backfill, infiltration through covers over disposal areas and adjacent soils, and surface drainage of the disposal site. The analyses must provide reasonable assurance that there will not be a need for ongoing active maintenance of the disposal site following closure.
#### In the Matter of Martin Lowe, Appellant, v. Thomas M. De Paoli et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating respondents Thomas M. De Paoli and James W. Elliott as candidates in the *976Republican Party Primary Election to be held on June 23, 1970 for nomination for the public office of Councilman of the Town of North Salem, Westchester County, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 27, 1970, which denied the application. Judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Latham and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
#### KING, Respondent, v. KING, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 18, 1914.)

Action by James B. King against Rose A. King.

No opinion. Order affirmed, without costs.
PGI 23.9001 General.

(c) See Vaccination Deviation Flow Chart

(https://dlamil.dps.mil/sites/Acquisition/Shared%20Documents/J-72/Vaccination%20Deviation%20Flo

w%20Chart_Updated_29OCT2021.pdf) on the Acquisition SharePoint Page. The flow chart includes

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).

Parent topic: PGI SUBPART 23.90 – ENSURING ADEQUATE COVID-19 SAFETY PROTOCOLS FOR

FEDERAL CONTRACTORS
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 10, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 93 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 94 -4 43 -0 89 JOSE SANTOS YANES, a.k .a. Jo se S. Yane s B on il la , Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 10 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Jo se San to s Yan es ap pe al s the de ci si onof t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n App eal s tha t af

firm edth e d en ia l o f hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti onof r em ov al . 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9b (b )(1 ). The B oa rdfou ndth atYane s was in el ig ib le forcan cel la ti on of rem ov al be cau se he ha d b eenco nv ic te d o f a cri m e o f do m es ti c v io le nc e, id . § 12 27 (a)( 2) (E)(i ). W e d en y Yane s’s p et it io n. The de ci si on of t he Bo ardis co ns is te ntwith the pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e st atut es th atgo ve rncan cel la ti on of r em ov al . Sect io n 1 22 9b (b )(1 ) pr ov id es th at , in cas es of e xc ep ti on al hard sh ip , “ [t]he Att orne y Gene ral m ay

can cel rem ov al of . . . anali enwho is in admis si bl e o r de po rtabl e” i f he ha s re m ai ne d i n the Uni te d S ta te s co nt in ua ll y

forten y ears , “ ha s b eena pe rs on of g oo d m or al ch arac te r,” an d “ ha s no t b eenco nv ic te d o f anoff en se un de r . . . [8 U.S.C. §§ ] 11 82 (a)( 2) , 12 27 (a)( 2) , or12 27 (a)( 3) .” Sect io n 1 22 7( a)(2 )(E)(i ) pr oh ib it s anali enfro m co m m it ti ng “ an y cri m e o f vi ol en ce . . . aga in sta cu rren t o r fo rm er s po us e.” Yan es do es no t d en y th at , in20 02 , he was co nv ic te d i n aGeor gi a co urt o f hi tt in g h is wife , whi chis a di squa li fy in g o ffen se un de r se ct io ns 12 29 b( b) (1 ) an d 1 22 7( a)(2 ). See M at te r of Co rte z, 25 I. & N. Dec. 30 1, 3 10 (20 10 ). Reg ard le ss of h is st atus as a n arri vi ng al ie n o r hi s el ig ib il ity

forth e ex cep ti onforpe tty off en se s, s ee 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 2) (A)(i i), Yan es is in el ig ib le forcan cel lati on of r em ov al . See Ma tt er o f Alm an za-Ar en as , 24 I. & N. Dec. 77 1, 7 76 (20 09 ). 2W e DENYYane s’s p et it io n.

3
#### PEOPLE v. ANHUT.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 9, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against John N. Anhut.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, unless appellant comply with terms stated in order. Order filed. See, also, 158 App. Div. 883, 142 N. Y. Supp. 1134; 148 N. Y. Supp. 7.
Document Headings

                    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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, February 24, 2010, 8 a.m. to February 26, 2010, 6 p.m., Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center, 9751 Washingtonian Blvd., Gaithersburg, MD 20878 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 15, 2009, 74 FR 66367.                

Dr. Wirth's February 24-26, 2010 meeting has been cancelled.

Dated: February 8, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-3206 Filed 2-18-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P