alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
40068.

#### HAMMOCK v. DAVIDSON GRANITE COMPANY et al.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

Where a claim- before the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation involves a question of whether the employee is disabled as the result of an occupational disease, the sole jurisdiction to decide this medical issue lies with the medical board and the only jurisdiction of the Board of Workmen’s Compensation is to enter an award in conformity therewith. *Code Ann.*§ 114-810. The findings of the medical board are conclusive and not reviewable unless an appeal is made directly therefrom on statutory grounds. *Code Ann.*'§ 114-823 (5). No such error is assigned by the plaintiff in error in this case. *Farrill v. Travelers Ins. Co.,*105 Ga. App. 600 (125 SE2d 562). It follows that, although the evidence was in dispute, the award of the medical board was authorized by the evidence before it, and the -Board of Workmen’s Compensation committed no error in entering an award finding against the claimant. The Judge *674of the Superior Court of DeKalb County, to whom this case was appealed, did not err in- affirming the award denying compensation.

Decided April 23, 1963.

*Herschel H. Hutchins,*for plaintiff in error.

*Gambrell, Harlan, Russell, Maye & Richardson, James C. Hill, Edward W. Killorin,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.*
#### David BOWLAN; Leslie Veronika Bowlan, individually and the marital community comprised thereof; James R. Lindsey, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. SHANNON TOWING INC, a Washington Business corporation; Bonnie Kopp, individually, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 01-35379.

D.C. No. CV-98-01383-WLD.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*870Submitted June 5, 2002.*

Decided June 12, 2002.

Before BRUNETTI, TROTT and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER**

Given (1) the process involved in this case, (2) the trial, and (3) the judgment at trial, $2,500.00 is manifestly inadequate as a reasonable fee to which the prevailing parties are entitled. In addition to those activities identified by the district court as a basis for its award, the record compels compensation for the following tasks and hours:

Accordingly, the total award of attorney’s fees shall reflect 42 hours — the 20 hours awarded by the district court plus the 22 hours identified by this Court on appeal — at $125.00 per hour. Appellants shall collect a fees award of $5,250.00.

Appellants shall submit to this Court an appropriate request for attorney’s fees on appeal. It is SO ORDERED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1014 Engrossed in House (EH)]

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1014

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
      To authorize extension of time limitation for a FERC-issued 
                         hydroelectric license.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
the time limitation of section 13 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, upon the request of the licensee for FERC 
Project No. 3701, is authorized, in accordance with the good faith, due 
diligence, and public interest requirements of section 13 and the 
Commission's procedures under such section, to extend the time required 
for the licensee to commence the construction of such project for up to 
a maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This section shall take 
effect for the project upon the expiration of the extension (issued by 
the Commission under section 13) of the period required for 
commencement of construction of such project. If the license for FERC 
Project 3701 should expire prior to the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Commission is authorized and directed to reinstate effective June 
1, 1995, the license previously issued for such project.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1014

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

      To authorize extension of time limitation for a FERC-issued 
                         hydroelectric license.
```
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 206.10 Operation of and payments from the Cash Management Improvements Fund. ( a ) The Cash Management Improvements Fund (Fund) will be operated as a revolving fund by the Service. Charges assessed under § 206.9(a) for cash management collection noncompliance will be deposited into the Fund according to the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. The Service will also disburse any payments from the Fund based on projects selected by a project selection and approval committee.
( b ) *Committee composition.* The committee will consist of three members—two permanent members and one temporary member. The permanent members will be the Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner, Federal Finance, of the Service. The temporary committee member will be a cash management official from an agency other than an agency being considered for funds. The order of agency assignment to the Committee will be published in a TFM Bulletin, when funds are first deposited to the Fund. Decisions of the project selection and approval committee cannot be appealed. Agencies will be notified of any available amounts in the Fund and requirements to apply for such monies through a TFM bulletin.
( c ) As provided by 31 U.S.C. 3720, sums in the Fund will be available without fiscal year limitation for the payment of expenses incurred in developing improved methods of collection and deposit and the expenses incurred in carrying out collections and deposits using such methods, including the costs of personal services and the costs of the lease or purchase of equipment and operating facilities.
( d ) In addition to all reports required by law and regulation, for each fiscal year during which there is a balance in Fund, the Service will prepare and publish, by the 60th day following the close of the fiscal year, a full report on payments, receipts, disbursements, balances of the Fund, and full disclosure on projects financed by the Fund.
§ 19.750 What does the suspending official consider in deciding whether to continue or terminate my suspension? ( a ) The suspending official bases the decision on all information contained in the official record. The record includes— ( 1 ) All information in support of the suspending official's initial decision to suspend you;
( 2 ) Any further information and argument presented in support of, or opposition to, the suspension; and
( 3 ) Any transcribed record of fact-finding proceedings.
( b ) The suspending official may refer disputed material facts to another official for findings of fact. The suspending official may reject any resulting findings, in whole or in part, only after specifically determining them to be arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 18 (Thursday, January 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1958]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 
Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special 
Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of 
employees at the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago, Illinois, as an 
addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy 
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On 
January 16, 2009, the Secretary of HHS designated the following class 
of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All AWE employees who worked at the Metallurgical Laboratory in 
Chicago, Illinois, from August 13, 1942 through June 30, 1946, for a 
number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring 
either solely under this employment or in combination with work days 
within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 
employees in the SEC.

This designation will become effective on February 15, 2009, unless 
Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this 
effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the Federal Register 
reporting the addition of this class to the SEC or the result of any 
provision by Congress regarding the decision by HHS to add the class to 
the SEC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of 
Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, 
OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). 
Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e313d3f2d3e3d3a3d50393128"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b54585a485b585f58355c544d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 26, 2009.
Christine M. Branche,
Acting Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E9-1958 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-17-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
From: Laney, Michael N.

Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:21 PM

To: 'Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov'

Subject:NOx and SNCR at Lafarges's Calera and Sugar Creek plants

Keith,

Lafarge, Calera, AL

I spoke with Katrina Scanlan (334

‐ 270

‐ 5677) with the Alabama Dept of Environmental Mgt about

NOx emissions and use of SNCR at the Lafarge Calera plant. She provided the following

information:

‐ The PH/PC kiln began operation in 2001.

‐ The kiln is a KHD Humboldt design.

‐ The SNCR is required to operate during the ozone season only, May 1 through September 30.

She has no information on the SNCR or its operation.

‐ The NOx limits are 221 tons/30 day period or 1870 tons/12 month period.

‐ It was her impression that because the kiln utilized SCC and LNB and that pre

‐ SNCR NOx levels

were low and so the removal efficiency of SNCR was on the order of 10

‐ 15%.

The kiln feed rate cannot exceed 3,088,800 tons per consecutive 12 month period.

‐ The state requires NOx CEMs, but the state does not require reports of CEMs results, only that

they have not exceeded their limit.

Lafarge, Sugar Creek, MO

I spoke with the Peter Yronwode and Tiffany Campbell with the MO Dept of Natural Resources.

They are suppose to provide me with a contact.

Michael Laney

Environmental Engineering

Environmental Health & Safety Division

RTI International

TEL: 919

‐ 316

‐ 3413

FAX: 919

‐ 316

‐ 3420

EMAIL: mnl@rti.org
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 5, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00348

- CR

Jacob KLEIN

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 144th Judi cial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR2866

Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s brief is currently due August 11, 2014. On August 1, 2014, appellant filed a

second motion to extend time to file his brief, asking for an extension of thirty days. We

GRANT appellant’s motion. Accordingly, appellant’s brief is due on or before September 10,

2014

.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of August, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
§ 19.870 When do I know if the debarring official debars me? ( a ) The debarring official must make a written decision whether to debar within 45 days of closing the official record. The official record closes upon the debarring official's receipt of final submissions, information and findings of fact, if any. The debarring official may extend that period for good cause.
( b ) The debarring official sends you written notice, pursuant to § 19.615 that the official decided, either— ( 1 ) Not to debar you; or
( 2 ) To debar you. In this event, the notice: ( i ) Refers to the Notice of Proposed Debarment;
( ii ) Specifies the reasons for your debarment;
( iii ) States the period of your debarment, including the effective dates; and
( iv ) Advises you that your debarment is effective for covered transactions and contracts that are subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1), throughout the executive branch of the Federal Government unless an agency head or an authorized designee grants an exception.
1 Aerial Inspection Resources, Inc.

4380 SW Macadam Ave.

Suite 515 Portland, OR 97239 Drew.p@aerialinspectionresources.com

U.S. Department of Transportation February 6 , 2016 Docket Manag ement System 1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Amendment to Aerial Inspection Resources, Inc. Exemption No. 11467

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0261

Dear Sir or Madam:

Aerial Inspection Resources, Inc. (AIR) is request ing an amendme nt to our FAA Exemption No.

11467, Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0261 for the purpose of conductin g commercial UAS operations. AIR

wishes to add the DJI AGRAS MG

- 1

.

For your ease in reviewing this request, please re fer to the exhibit list which begins on page 2.

If we can provide any additional information to assist your understanding or review of this

document, please do not hesitate to contact us at 503

- 312

- 9804 or via email at drew.p @air

- uas.com

.

Thank you,

Drew Pairamore

Director of Regulatory Compliance

Aerial Inspection Resources, Inc.2 

### Table of

Contents

Exhibits

Exhibit 1: DJI AGRAS MG

- 1 Specifications

. . ... .. ... Uploaded separately due to size constraints
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6768

DENNIS RODGER DAVIS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TONYA JAMES, Warden KER CI (Official Capacity),

Respondent - Appellee,

and

BRYAN P. STERLING, Director SCDC (Official Capacity); JEANNINE PRICE, 

Case Manager KER CI (Official Capacity),

Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (0:19-cv-02720-JD)

Submitted: January 4, 2023 Decided: January 17, 2023

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Rodger Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6768 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/17/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Rodger Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge as modified and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, __, 137 

S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability, 

deny the motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6768 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/17/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
ex10-7.htm


Exhibit 10.7







AMENDMENT ONE TO SPONSORED RESEARCH AGREEMENT







This Amendment made this 3rd day of July, 2012 by and between the THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, a body corporate, contracting for and on behalf of the University of Colorado Denver, a public institution of higher education created under the Constitution and the Law of the State of Colorado (hereinafter referred to as “UNIVERSITY”) and Omni Bio Pharmaceutical, Inc. hereinafter referred to as “Sponsor”.







WHEREAS, the parties hereto previously entered into a contract dated March 23, 2012,  for RESEARCH services to be performed by UNIVERSITY under the supervision of Charles A. Dinarello, INVESTIGATOR, and;







NOW THEREFORE, it is desired to amend the contract as follows:







1.  The compensation for this Study is increased by a fixed price of One Hundred Fifty-seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($157,500).  This amount represents Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($17,500) per month through the term of this Amendment to be paid as follows:







$105,000 to be paid upon execution


$52,500 to be paid on or before September 15, 2012













	
  

	
2.

	
The term of this Amendment shall be April 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012.

















All other terms and conditions of said Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment below:




	INSTITUTION:   	 	SPONSOR:	 
	Regents of the University of Colorado,	 	Omni Bio Pharmaceutical, Inc.	 
	

a body corporate, for and on behalf of

	 	 	 
	

the University of Colorado Denver

	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By	 	 	By	 	 
	 	
Adelita J. DeHerrera, JD  

	 	 	
Robert Ogden

	 
	 	
Contracts Manager  

	 	 	
Chief Financial Officer

	 
	 	

Office of Grants and Contracts
#### Ingle *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 22,635.

Filed October 7, 1914.]

1. *Rape.*— Evidence.—Age *of Prosecutrix.*— The admission in evidence of the testimony of the prosecuting witness in a rape case, in relation to the fact that she was under the age of consent, after it was shown that her knowledge on that subject was based on information given her by her father, was not error, p. 199.

2. Criminal *Law.*— Appeal.—Objections *to Evidence.*— Failure *to Reserve Exception.*— Defendant in a criminal prosecution, by failing to except to the ruling of the trial court admitting certain evidence, waives his right to a review of such action on appeal, p. 199.

3. Criminal *Law.*— New *Trial.*— Newly-Discovered *Evidence.*— Dil*igence.*— Where the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence fails to set out facts showing that due diligence was exercised to procure such evidence, the motion is properly overruled, p. 199.

Prom Perry Circuit Court; *William Bidley,*Judge. *199Prosecution, by the State of Indiana against Donzell Ingle. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.

*Affirmed.*

*Ewing & Lincoln*and *Oscar G. Minor,*for appellant.

*Thomas M. Honan,*Attorney-General, and *Thomas H. Branaman,*for the State.

Morris, J.

1.

Appellant was convicted on a charge of the alleged rape of a female child under the age of sixteen years. §2250 Burns 1914, Acts 1913 p. 267. The only error assigned here is the overruling of the motion for a new trial. It is contended that the court erred in permitting the prosecuting witness to testify in relation to her age after it was shown that her knowledge on that subject was based on information given her by her father. There was no error. Underhill, Crim. Ev. (2d ed.) §342.

2.

The prosecuting witness had been placed in the custody of defendant’s father by the State Board of Charities, and while in such custody, the offense is alleged to have been committed by defendant while living with his father. The court admitted in evidence written reports to the board relating to the prosecuting witness, made by the father, on furnished blanks, which, among other things, stated the age of the girl at the time of making the reports. The appellant failed to except to the ruling of the court, on the admission of this evidence, and thereby waived his right to a review of such action. 1 Ind. Dig. Ann., Appeal and Error, §260, (a).

3.

The motion for a new trial was grounded, in part, on appellant’s affidavit relating to newly-discovered evidence. The decision of the trial court, in refusing a new trial for such cause, will not be set aside unless the motion sets out facts showing that the defendant exercised due diligence. The affidavit is defective in this respect, and there was no error in the court’s ruling. *Cheek*v. *State*(1908), 171 Ind. 98, 101, 103, 85 N. E. 779, and authorities cited.

*200The record discloses no reversible error. Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 106 N. E. 373. As to the showing of due diligence required on motion for new trial, see 78 Am. Dec. 518. See, also, under (1) 33 Cyc. 1472; (2) 12 Cyc. 818; (3) 12 Cyc. 751.