alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frank Lo Giudice, Appellant, v. Benedict Riedel, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered November 22, 1968 in favor of defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the end of plaintiff’s ease upon a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact were considered. Plaintiff testified that before crossing in the middle of the block he observed defendant’s automobile 200 feet away and traveling towards him at approximately 30 miles an hour. The automobile continued at this same rate of speed until it struck plaintiff before he reached the walk on the other side of the street. Plaintiff stated that defendant failed to sound any warnings prior to the accident. In our opinion, the issues with respect to plaintiff’s contributory negligence and defendant’s negligence were questions of fact for the jury. We are unable to say that a jury could not properly find that, if defendant had been sufficiently vigilant and careful, he would have seen plaintiff in time to avoid injuring him (see *Moebus*v. *Herrmann,*108 N. Y. 349, *352; Baker*v. *Close,*204 N. Y. 92, 95; Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1154). Moreover, the fact that a pedestrian is struck by a vehicle while attempting to cross in the middle of the block will not, of itself, constitute contributory negligence so as to bar his action for personal injuries (see *Moebus*v. *Herrmann,*supra;*Knapp*v. *Barrett,*216 N. Y. 226, 230; *Rettegi*v. *Gremelsbacker,*29 A D 2d 650). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
§ 960.5-2-9 Rock characteristics. ( a ) *Qualifying condition.* The site shall be located such that ( 1 ) the thickness and lateral extent and the characteristics and composition of the host rock will be suitable for accommodation of the underground facility;
( 2 ) repository construction, operation, and closure will not cause undue hazard to personnel; and
( 3 ) the requirements specified in § 960.5-1(a)(3) can be met.
( b ) *Favorable conditions.* ( 1 ) A host rock that is sufficiently thick and laterally extensive to allow significant flexibility in selecting the depth, configuration, and location of the underground facility.
( 2 ) A host rock with characteristics that would require minimal or no artificial support for underground openings to ensure safe repository construction, operation, and closure.
( c ) *Potentially adverse conditions.* ( 1 ) A host rock that is suitable for repository construction, operation, and closure, but is so thin or laterally restricted that little flexibility is available for selecting the depth, configuration, or location of an underground facility.
( 2 ) In situ characteristics and conditions that could require engineering measures beyond reasonably available technology in the construction of the shafts and underground facility.
( 3 ) Geomechanical properties that could necessitate extensive maintenance of the underground openings during repository operation and closure.
( 4 ) Potential for such phenomena as thermally induced fracturing, the hydration and dehydration of mineral components, or other physical, chemical, or radiation-related phenomena that could lead to safety hazards or difficulty in retrieval during repository operation.
( 5 ) Existing faults, shear zones, pressurized brine pockets, dissolution effects, or other stratigraphic or structural features that could compromise the safety of repository personnel because of water inflow or construction problems.
( d ) *Disqualifying condition.* The site shall be *disqualified* if the rock characteristics are such that the activities associated with repository construction, operation, or closure are predicted to cause significant risk to the health and safety of personnel, taking into account mitigating measures that use reasonably available technology.
###### Editorial Note on Part 180

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 180.100 How are subparts A through I organized?

(a) Each subpart contains information related to a broad topic or specific audience with special responsibilities, as shown in the following table:

| In subpart . . . | You will find provisions related to . . . |
| --- | --- |
| A | general information about Subparts A through I of this part. |
| B | the types of transactions that are covered by the Governmentwide nonprocurement suspension and debarment system. |
| C | the responsibilities of persons who participate in covered transactions. |
| D | the responsibilities of Federal agency officials who are authorized to enter into covered transactions. |
| E | the responsibilities of Federal agencies for entering information into SAM Exclusions |
| F | the general principles governing suspension, debarment, voluntary exclusion and settlement. |
| G | suspension actions. |
| H | debarment actions. |
| I | definitions of terms used in this part. |

(b) The following table shows which subparts may be of special interest to you, depending on who you are:

| If you are . . . | See Subpart(s) . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (1) a participant or principal in a nonprocurement transaction | A, B, C and I. |
| (2) a respondent in a suspension action | A, B, F, G and I. |
| (3) a respondent in a debarment action | A, B, F, H and I. |
| (4) a suspending official | A, B, E, F, G and I. |
| (5) a debarring official | A, B, D, F, H and I. |
| (6) an Federal agency official authorized to enter into a covered transaction | A, B, D, E and I. |
EX-10.6



 








EXHIBIT 10.6




Addendum NO. 1




to the




EXCESS OF LOSS RETROCESSION AGREEMENT




BY AND BETWEEN




PLATINUM UNDERWRITERS BERMUDA, LTD.




(RETROCEDANT)




and




PLATINUM RE (UK) LIMITED




(RETROCESSIONAIRE)




DATED AS OF July 1st 2006



IT IS HEREBY AGREED that with effect from 1st July 2006 the TERRITORY, REINSTATEMENT and
the PREMIUM PROVISION shall be amended to read as follows:




ARTICLE 4 - TERRITORY



Coverage applies within the territorial limits of North America, South America, Japan and the
Carribbean. Coverage in Japan only applies for the peril of earthquake.




ARTICLE 7 - REINSTATEMENT



Each loss hereon reduces the amount of indemnity provided under this Agreement by the amount paid.
Any amount so exhausted shall be automatically reinstated from the time of the occurrence of loss
and for each amount so reinstated, the Retrocedant agrees to pay an additional premium calculated
at pro rata of $5,200,000 as respects the fraction of indemnity exhausted and 100% of $5,200,000
regardless of the unexpired term of this Agreement. Nevertheless, the Retrocessionaire’s liability
shall not exceed $70,000,000 with respect to all Loss Occurrences during the term of the Agreement.




ARTICLE 8 - PREMIUM



The premium for this Agreement shall be a flat premium of $4,800,000 payable in installments of
$2,200,000 January 1st 2006 and $2,600,000 July 1st 2006.




page 1 of 2









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly
authorized representatives as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Platinum Re (UK) Limited	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Michael J. Coldman	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Michael J. Coldman	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Date:
	 	July 21, 2006	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Platinum Underwriters Bermuda, Ltd.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Les Waters	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Les Waters	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Vice President	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Date:
	 	July 21, 2006	 	 







page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Galaxy Coffee Shop, Inc., Petitioner, v. Donald S. Hostetter et al., Constituting the State Liquor Authority, Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul a determination of the State Liquor Authority which denied petitioner’s application for a restaurant liquor license. After a hearing 'before the Authority upon remand by the Special Term, the Authority on July 3, 1968 adhered to its original determination denying the application. Determination annulled, on the law, without costs, and respondent directed to issue such license to petitioner forthwith. No questions of fact have been considered. Petitioner’s application for a license was denied on the ground that the restaurant entrance was less than 200 feet (namely, 196.4 feet) from the nearest entrance of a school on the same street. The school door used for the purpose of that measurement was a side door, used exclusively as an exit (except during fire drills), and kept locked so it could not be entered from the street. On May 10, 1969, subdivision 7 of section 64 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law was amended by chapter 501 of the Laws of 1969, effective immediately, so as to define the word *“*entrance ” as a “ door of a school * * * regularly used to give ingress to students ”. As an appellate court must decide a ease on the basis of the law as it exists at the time of its decision *(Matter of Lunden*v. *Petito,*30 A D 2d 820; *Matter of Boardwalk & Seashore Corp.*v. *Murdock,*286 N. Y. 494; *Black Riv. Regulating Dist.*v. *Adirondack League Club,*307 N. Y. 475), we must determine this case on the basis of subdivision 7 of section 64 as it npw reads. It is clear that under the present statute, the side door in question cannot be considered an *“*entrance ”, and the distance must be measured to the nearest entrance of the school around the corner, on a different street. That entrance is not only on a different street 'but is also substantially more than 200 feet from the restaurant. Hence, the issuance of the license to petitioner is not barred by the distance limitation contained in subdivision 7 of section 64. We might also note that even under subdivision 7 of section 64 as it read prior to the 1969 amendment, it is our opinion that the subject side door was not an *“*entrance ” as that word was used in the statute; and the distance therefore should not have been measured to that door but rather to the nearest entrance of the school around the corner, which, as above noted, was on a different street and more than 200. feet from the restaurant (see *Matter of Tirdell*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*12 N Y 2d 935; *McDougal*v. *Malaghan,*184 N. Y. 253; *Matter of Surface Line Operators Fraternal Organization*v. *New York State Liq. Auth.,*25 A D 2d 775). Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
# EUR-Lex - 31978R1300 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31978R1300

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 1300/78 of 6 June 1978 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1703/72 laying down 'inter alia' rules for the Community financing of expenditure arising from the implementation of the 1971 Food-Aid Convention **

*
Official Journal L 160 , 17/06/1978 P. 0012 - 0012 Finnish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 37 P. 0065 Swedish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 37 P. 0065 Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 21 P. 0156 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 14 P. 0122 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 14 P. 0122 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1300/78 of 6 June 1978 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1703/72 laying down "inter alia" rules for the Community financing of expenditure arising from the implementation of the 1971 Food-Aid Convention

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas Article 3 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in cereals (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1125/78 (3), provides for the fixing of a single intervention price for certain cereals, including common wheat, and of a reference price for common wheat of bread-making quality;

Whereas, with effect from the 1977/78 marketing year, wheat of bread-making quality may, under special intervention measures, be bought in to intervention at the reference price;

Whereas common wheat of bread-making quality may, therefore, be supplied as food aid;

Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 1703/72 of 3 August 1972 laying down inter alia rules for the Community financing of expenditure arising from the implementation of the 1971 Food-Aid Convention (4), refers only to the intervention price, in particular in Article 7 thereof concerning the price at which goods are handed over in implementation of the aforesaid Convention;

Whereas, since certain food-aid measures may take the form of common wheat or common wheat of bread-making quality, the goods should be supplied at the appropriate price,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1703/72 is replaced by the following text:

"The price at which the intervention agency hands over goods in implementation of the 1971 Food-Aid Convention shall be, as appropriate, the single intervention price or the reference price for the month in which the goods are removed from intervention."

Article 2

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

It shall apply with effect from 1 August 1977.

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

Done at Luxembourg, 6 June 1978.

For the Council

The President

K.B. ANDERSEN (1)OJ No C 108, 8.5.1978, p. 56. (2)OJ No L 281, 1.11.1975, p. 1. (3)OJ No L 142, 30.5.1978, p. 21. (4)OJ No L 180, 8.8.1972, p. 1.
§ 1108.70 Basic research. *Basic research* means efforts directed toward increasing knowledge and understanding in science and engineering, rather than the practical application of that knowledge and understanding. It typically is funded within Basic Research (Budget Activity 1) programs within DoD's Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriations. For the purposes of the DoDGARs, basic research includes: ( a ) Research-related, science and engineering education and training, including graduate fellowships and research traineeships; and
( b ) Research instrumentation and other activities designed to enhance the infrastructure for science and engineering research.
ARROWHEAD TRANSFER/ ALASKA MARINE LINES ~,E:

1..;;· ~ •

, amwrftinl tflis letter on behalf of Alaska Seaplaneswho I am hopeful will remain

the carrier~inl0 l~a1<e.They have provided us with excellent service a~d have gone

the extra mile to get parts or whatever might be needed so that we could also

provide uninterrupted service here in town. In a remote area having a breakdown

of equipment can of great diffieulty not only to us, but to the whole town who

depends on us for both freight and propane. Alaska Seaplanes has made sure to

do whatever it takes to help with our needs here. The mail has also been much

B, more reliable since they took over as the carrier who we had previously would

cancel for the day often if weather kept them more than about Yz hour past their

schedule. That is just not feasible for us here and caused delays in billing,

payment and other time sensitive schedules that are an invaluable part of the

successful operation of any business. In all of these areas Alaska Seaplanes has

. provided far and away superior service so it is obvious why we hope they will

continue to be our carrier here .

.

anager Arrowhead Transfer! Alaska marine Lines

Generated by CamScanner from intsig.com
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Thomas M. Duff, Chief Executive Officer of Wellman, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Wellman, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting.        Date August 9, 2005 By:  /s/ Thomas M. Duff   Chief Executive Officer
*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment**Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*________ Page 75 is not included in this copy. Pages through are not included in this copy.

_________________________________________________________________ The material not included contains the following type of information: _____ Identity of product inert ingredients. _____ Identity of product impurities. Description of the product manufacturing process. _____ Description of quality control procedures. Identity of the source of product ingredients. _____ Sales or other commercial/financial information. _____ A draft product label.
X The product confidential statement of formula. _____ Information about a pending registration action. _____ FIFRA registration data. _____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _______. _____ The document is not responsive to the request. Internal deliberative information. Attorney-client communication. Claimed confidential by submitter upon submission to the Agency. _____ Third party confidential business information.

_________________________________________________________________ The information not included is generally considered confidential by product r egistrants. If you have any questions, please contact the individual who prepared the response to your request.________ Page is not included in this copy. Pages 77 through 78 are not included in this copy.

_________________________________________________________________ The material not included contains the following type of information: _____ Identity of product inert ingredients. _____ Identity of product impurities. Description of the product manufacturing process. _____ Description of quality control procedures. Identity of the source of product ingredients. _____ Sales or other commercial/financial information. _____ A draft product label.
X The product confidential statement of formula. _____ Information about a pending registration action. _____ FIFRA registration data. _____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _______. _____ The document is not responsive to the request. Internal deliberative information. Attorney-client communication. Claimed confidential by submitter upon submission to the Agency. _____ Third party confidential business information.

_________________________________________________________________ The information not included is generally considered confidential by product r egistrants. If you have any questions, please contact the individual who prepared the response to your request.
PGI 217.7103-4 Emergency work.

Process this type of undefinitized contract action in accordance with DFARS Subpart 217.74.

Negotiate a price as soon as practicable after the issuance of an undefinitized order and definitize

the job order upon completing negotiations.

Parent topic: PGI 217.7103 Master agreements and job orders.
§ 71.59 Standards for arrays of fissile material packages. ( a ) A fissile material package must be controlled by either the shipper or the carrier during transport to assure that an array of such packages remains subcritical. To enable this control, the designer of a fissile material package shall derive a number “N” based on all the following conditions being satisfied, assuming packages are stacked together in any arrangement and with close full reflection on all sides of the stack by water: ( 1 ) Five times “N” undamaged packages with nothing between the packages would be subcritical;
( 2 ) Two times “N” damaged packages, if each package were subjected to the tests specified in § 71.73 (“Hypothetical accident conditions”) would be subcritical with optimum interspersed hydrogenous moderation; and
( 3 ) The value of “N” cannot be less than 0.5.
( b ) The CSI must be determined by dividing the number 50 by the value of “N” derived using the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section. The value of the CSI may be zero provided that an unlimited number of packages are subcritical, such that the value of “N” is effectively equal to infinity under the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section. Any CSI greater than zero must be rounded up to the first decimal place.
( c ) For a fissile material package which is assigned a CSI value— ( 1 ) Less than or equal to 50, that package may be shipped by a carrier in a nonexclusive use conveyance, provided the sum of the CSIs is limited to less than or equal to 50.
( 2 ) Less than or equal to 50, that package may be shipped by a carrier in an exclusive use conveyance, provided the sum of the CSIs is limited to less than or equal to 100.
( 3 ) Greater than 50, that package must be shipped by a carrier in an exclusive use conveyance, provided the sum of the CSIs is limited to less than or equal to 100.
[60 FR 50264, Sept. 28, 1995, as amended at 69 FR 3795, Jan. 26, 2004]