alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 725

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 725 appear at 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023.

#### § 725.4 Interpretations.

Except as specifically authorized by the Director, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security in writing no interpretation of the meaning of the regulations in this part by any officer or employee of DOE other than a written interpretation by the General Counsel will be recognized to be binding upon DOE.

[41 FR 56778, Dec. 30, 1976, as amended at 71 FR 68732, Nov. 28, 2006; 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023]
#### KIDD, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by John Kidd, as executor, etc., of George W. Wait, deceased, against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. See, also, 158 App. Div. 904, 142 N. Y. Supp. 1125.

BURR, J., dissents.
Editorial Note on Part 851
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 851 appear at 88 FR 41293, June 26, 2023.

§ 851.32 Action on variance requests. ( a ) *Procedures for an approval recommendation.* ( 1 ) If the EHSS Director recommends approval of a variance application, the EHSS Director must forward to the Under Secretary the variance application and the approval recommendation including a discussion of the basis for the recommendation and any terms and conditions proposed for inclusion as part of the approval.
( 2 ) If the Under Secretary approves a variance, the Under Secretary must notify the EHSS Director who must notify the Office of Enforcement and the CSO who must promptly notify the contractor.
( 3 ) The notification must include a reference to the safety and health standard or portion thereof that is the subject of the application, a detailed description of the variance, the basis for the approval and any terms and conditions of the approval.
( 4 ) If the Under Secretary denies a variance, the Under Secretary must notify the EHSS Director who must notify the appropriate CSO who must notify the contractor.
( 5 ) The notification must include the grounds for denial.
( b ) *Approval criteria.* A variance may be granted if the variance: ( 1 ) Is consistent with section 3173 of the NDAA;
( 2 ) Does not present an undue risk to worker safety and health;
( 3 ) Is warranted under the circumstances;
( 4 ) Satisfies the requirements of § 851.31 of this part for the type of variance requested.
( c ) *Procedures for a denial recommendation.* ( 1 ) If the EHSS Director recommends denial of a variance application, the EHSS Director must notify the CSO of the denial recommendation and the grounds for the denial recommendation.
( 2 ) Upon receipt of a denial recommendation, the CSO may: ( i ) Notify the contractor that the variance application is denied on the grounds cited by the EHSS Director; or
( ii ) Forward to the Under Secretary the variance application, the denial recommendation, the grounds for the denial recommendation, and any information that supports an action different than that recommended by the EHSS Director.
( 3 ) If the CSO forwards the application to the Under Secretary, the procedures in paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (4) and (5) of this section apply.
( 4 ) A denial of an application pursuant to this section shall be without prejudice to submitting of another application
( d ) *Grounds for denial of a variance.* A variance may be denied if: ( 1 ) Enforcement of the violation would be handled as a *de minimis* violation (defined as a deviation from the requirement of a standard that has no direct or immediate relationship to safety or health, and no enforcement action will be taken);
( 2 ) When a variance is not necessary for the conditions, practice, means, methods, operations, or processes used or proposed to be used by contractor;
( 3 ) Contractor does not demonstrate that the approval criteria are met.
[71 FR 6931, Feb. 9, 2006, as amended at 71 FR 68733, Nov. 28, 2006; 80 FR 5009, Jan. 30, 2015; 88 FR 41293, June 26, 2023]
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 35842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14691]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Second Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 229, 406 MHz Emergency 
Locator Transmitters (ELTs) Joint With EUROCAE WG-98 Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Second Meeting 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) 
Joint with EUROCAE WG-98 Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
first meeting of the 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) 
Joint with EUROCAE WG-98 Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 3-5 from 9:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. 
(Europe Summer Time).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held CNES, 18 Avenue Edouard Belin 31400 
Toulouse, France.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or you 
may contact Sophie Bousquet, sobousquet@rtca.org, 202-330-0663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 224. The agenda will 
include the following:

September 3, 2014

     Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks.
     Agenda overview and approval.
     Minutes Washington meeting review and approval.
     Briefing of ICAO and COSPAS-SARSAT activities.
     WG 1 to 4 status and week's plan.
     Other Industry coordination and presentations (if any).
     WG meetings (rest of the day).

September 4, 2014

     WG 1 to 4 meetings.

September 5, 2014

     WGs' reports.
     Action item review.
     Future meeting plans and dates.
     Industry coordination and presentations (if any).
     Other business.
     Adjourn.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 18, 2014.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group, Federal 
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-14691 Filed 6-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### § 960.3-2-2-3 Comparative evaluation of all sites proposed for nomination.

*Sixth,* for those potentially acceptable sites to be proposed for nomination, as determined by the process specified in § 960.3-2-2-2, a reasonable comparative evaluation of each such site with all other such sites shall be made. For each site and for each guideline specified in subparts C and D, the DOE shall summarize the evaluations and findings specified under § 960.3-2-2-1 and under the fourth and fifth provisions of § 960.3-2-2-2. Each such summary shall allow comparisons to be made among sites on this basis of each guideline.
#### Louis Light Corp., Respondent, v. Barney Monte, Defendant, and Moncarol Construction Corp., Appellant.

Order entered January 7, 1969, on the law and appellant’s motion to vacate the prior *896order granting partial summary judgment is granted; the order granting partial summary judgment and the judgment entered thereon are vacated and plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant. Appeals from two orders entered October 29, 1968, and from judgment entered October 31, 1969 are dismissed as academic without costs. In this action to recover for work, labor and services performed by plaintiff as a heating contractor in the construction of certain buildings and for damages for fraud, Special Term on October 29, 1968 granted (in our view correctly) partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the first three causes of action. However, upon appellant’s motion for renewal and reconsideration, the affidavit of Theodore Monte in support thereof was accepted by Special Term and considered on the merits. This affidavit sets forth in great detail each and every item of extra work listed by plaintiff which affiant categorically states was included within the basic contract and fully paid. It is also claimed that excessive charges were made for extra work actually performed. Items of claimed or omitted work and substitution of inferior materials are also listed in detail. The same affidavit details payments by checks to third parties totalling $10,572 at the direction of one Jack Sloan said to have been an officer and principal stockholder of the corporation and the only person on behalf of the plaintiff with whom appellant had transacted business. Detailed evidentiary proof has been furnished by appellant which raise substantial and real issues of fact and which, if ultimately resolved in appellant’s favor upon trial, will defeat recovery by plaintiff. Indeed if that be the ease, appellant may recover affirmative judgment against plaintiff. Under these circumstances it is well established that summary, judgment may not be granted. It has been said that “ ‘ issue-finding, rather than issue-determination, is the key to the procedure’ *’’(Sillman*v. *Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.,*3 N Y 2d 395, 404; see, also, *Falk*v. *Goodman,*7 N Y 2d 87, 91). This is so because the granting of such a motion is the procedural equivalent to a trial. Settle order on notice.- Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Nunez and Bastow, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 80796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32342]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Correction to Proposed Methodology for Respondent Selection in 
Antidumping Proceedings; Request for Comment

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shauna Biby, Senior Import Policy 
Analyst, Office of Policy, Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4267.

Correction and Clarification

    On December 16, 2010, the Department of Commerce published in the 
Federal Register the following notice: Proposed Methodology for 
Respondent Selection in Antidumping Proceedings; Request for Comment, 
75 FR 78678 (Dec. 16, 2010) (Respondent Selection Notice). After the 
publication of the Respondent Selection Notice, we identified an 
inadvertent error in this notice. Specifically, we inadvertently listed 
the deadline to file comments as both 30 days and 45 days following 
publication. The correct deadline for filing comments is 45 days after 
publication (i.e., January 30, 2011). Because this date falls on a 
weekend, the deadline for filing comments is January 31, 2011.

    Dated: December 17, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-32342 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 80839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32323]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLIDT000000.L11200000.DD0000.241A.00]


Notice of Public Meetings, Twin Falls District Resource Advisory 
Council, Idaho

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), and the 
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 (FLREA), the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Twin Falls 
District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) and subcommittee for the 
Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP) will meet as indicated below.

DATES: January 12, 2011 and January 26, 2011. On January 12, 2011, the 
Twin Falls District RAC subcommittee members will meet at the Loong 
Hing Restaurant, 1719 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho. The meeting 
will begin at 6 p.m., and the public comment period will take place 
from 6:15 to 6:45 p.m.
    On January 26, 2011, the Twin Falls District RAC members will meet 
at the Best Western Sawtooth Inn at 2653 S. Lincoln Street, Jerome, 
Idaho. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and end no later than 5 p.m. 
The public comment period for the RAC meeting will take place 9:15 a.m. 
to 9:45 a.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Tiel-Nelson, Twin Falls 
District, Idaho, 2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho, 83301, (208) 
736-2352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of 
the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of 
planning and management issues associated with public land management 
in Idaho. During the January 12th meeting, RAC subcommittee members 
will finalize their comments on the Jarbidge Draft Resource Management 
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS). During the January 26th 
meeting, there will be a new member orientation, and RAC members will 
discuss the subcommittee comments regarding the Jarbidge Draft RMP/EIS.
    Additional topics may be added and will be included in local media 
announcements. More information is available at http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/res/resource_advisory.3.html.
    RAC meetings are open to the public. For further information about 
the meeting, please contact Heather Tiel-Nelson, Public Affairs 
Specialist for the Twin Falls District, BLM at (208) 736-2352.

    Dated: December 10, 2010.
Bill Baker,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 2010-32323 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
#### GORDON v. MERRIAM PAPER CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

Action by Samuel Gordon against the Merriam Paper Company and others.

No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with this Annual Report of STL Marketing Group, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-K /A for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jaime Kniep,
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Such
                                         Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
                                         31, 2014, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
                                         of operations of the Company.



|Date:
    December 11 , 2015 | By: | /s/
    Jaime Kniep                                                                                           
|---------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                             |     | Jaime
    Kniep                                                                                               
|                             |     | Principal
                                         Financial Officer
        STL
        Marketing Group, Inc.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Substanceabuse treatment advisory: breaking news for the treatment field**** 
SuDocNumber:HE20.429/5:
ItemNumber:0497-E-02(online)
CGPSystem Number:000597166
 
Vol. 1, issue1 (Apr. 2001)
Vol. 2, issue 1(Nov. 2002)
Vol. 3,issue 1 (Mar. 2003)
Vol. 4,issue 1 (Fall 2005)
Vol. 5,issue 1 (Apr. 2006)
Vol. 5, issue2 (May 2006)
Vol. 5, issue3 (June 2006)
Vol. 5, issue 4(Sept. 2006)
Vol. 6, issue 1(Spring 2007)
Vol. 7,issue 1 (Summer 2008)
Vol. 8,issue 1 (Spring 2009)
Vol.9, issue 1 (July 2010)
Vol. 9, issue 2(Oct. 2010)
March 3, 2020**
§ 820.32 Final order. ( a ) *Effect of Initial Decision.* The Initial Decision shall be deemed filed as a Final Order thirty days after the filing of the Initial Decision unless the Secretary files a Final Order that modifies the Initial Decision or the Secretary files a Notice of Review.
( b ) *Notice of review.* If the Secretary files a Notice of Review, he shall file a Final Order as soon as practicable after completing his review. The Secretary may, at his discretion, order additional procedures, remand the matter or modify the remedy, including an increase or decrease in the amount of the civil penalty from the amount recommended to be assessed in the Initial Decision.
( c ) *Payment of a civil penalty.* The respondent shall pay the full amount of any civil penalty assessed in the Final Order within thirty (30) days after the Final Order is filed unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4506

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. TORIANO HOIVEY BLOCKER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00466-CMC-l)

Submitted: May 18, 2009 Decided: June 3, 2009

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cameron B. Littlejohn, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stanley Duane Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Toriano Hoivey Blocker pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to knowingly using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006) (Count Three), and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006) (Count Five). Blocker was sentenced to 270 months in prison. Blocker appealed. Counsel for Blocker filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court properly conducted Blocker’s guilty plea hearing. Blocker has filed a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea in the district court, we review for plain error the adequacy of the guilty plea proceeding under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. United States v. Martinez , 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our examination of the record shows that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11. Further, Blocker’s plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and supported by a factual basis. We therefore find no error.

23 We have reviewed Blocker’s pro se informal brief and find no merit to his claims. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Blocker, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Blocker requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel = s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Blocker. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
§ 850.40 Performance feedback. ( a ) The responsible employer must conduct periodic analyses and assessments of monitoring activities, hazards, medical surveillance, exposure reduction and minimization, and occurrence reporting data.
( b ) To ensure that information is available to maintain and improve all elements of the CBDPP continuously, the responsible employer must give results of periodic analyses and assessments to the line managers, planners, worker protection staff, workers, medical staff, and labor organizations representing beryllium-associated workers who request such information.