alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

DATE: 02 JUNE 2015 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Prothioconazole (113961) Label Use Reports Package in Support of Registration 

Review

FROM: LaVerne Dobbins, Environmental Protection Specialist

Science Information and Analysis Branch (7503P)

TO: Margaret Hathaway, Chemical Review Manager 

 Risk Management and Implementation Branch 2

 Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

This memorandum transmits the LUIS Use reports for Prothioconazole (113961). This 

is a full report. All EPA registered and accepted Section 3 and Special Local Need (SLN) 

registrations, containing this ingredient, as of the date of this report, are included in this report 

with the exception of technical and/or manufacturing use products. 

For questions, comments and other usage or label use information requests, please 

contact LaVerne Dobbins at 308-6378. Other requests for information may be addressed to OPP 

Usage and Label Use Team, our group e-mail address.

Attachments 

HED Master Label Report

EFED Table 1 Report

Label Data Report

General Chemical (Issues) Report

Label Tracking Report

Screening-level Usage Analysis (SLUA)
# C_2005271EN.01002202.xml

| 29.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/22

---

Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Commission v E. Alexiadou

(Case T-312/05)

(2005/C 271/44)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties:

Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Dimitrios Triantafillou and Dimos Nikopoulos, lawyer)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Effrosini Alexiadou

Defendant(s):

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

| — | order the defendant to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 26 068.11, corresponding to the principal sum owed of EUR 23 036.31 and the sum of EUR 3 031.80 owed by way of default interest from 1 March 2003 to 31 August 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 26 068.11, corresponding to the principal sum owed of EUR 23 036.31 and the sum of EUR 3 031.80 owed by way of default interest from 1 March 2003 to 31 August 2005;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the Commission interest amounting to EUR 3.31 per day until the entire amount due has been paid in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the Commission interest amounting to EUR 3.31 per day until the entire amount due has been paid in full;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Community, represented by the European Commission, concluded with the defendant, as member of a consortium, Contract No G1ST-CT-2002-50227-PLASMALEATHER concerning a specific research and technological development programme relating to cold plasma treatment for water-repellent leather.

The contract provided that the Commission would contribute financially to the proper performance of the project, by payment of a sum which would not exceed EUR 832 362. Within that framework the Commission paid to the defendant, through the coordinator of the consortium, an advance of EUR 23 036.31.

However, immediately after receipt of that sum the defendant declared to the coordinator that she had stopped the production of leather articles, had decided to move her business activities to a different line, could not guarantee successful conclusion of the project activities and considered that it would be better to leave the project at the beginning of all activities.

The defendant was repeatedly given notice to pay, but she did not return the amount of the advance although, as the coordinator has certified, she did not participate at all in the research and consequently did not use the advance for such a purpose.

By its action, the Commission seeks payment of the aforementioned sum owed and the interest due thereon.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM
     10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
     ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1,019
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  16,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                   622
<INVENTORY>                                    39,773
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               65,033
<PP&E>                                         28,466
<DEPRECIATION>                                 15,381
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,175
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          47,289
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       123
<OTHER-SE>                                     25,803
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,175
<SALES>                                        26,483
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               26,483
<CGS>                                          18,495
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  18,495
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               47
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                471
<INCOME-TAX>                                   199
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            272
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   272
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement on Form S-3 (No. 333-88588) of America West Holdings Corporation andAmerica West Airlines, Inc., the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.333-02129) of America West Airlines, Inc. and the Registration Statements onForm S-8 (No. 333-94361, No. 333-40486 and No. 333-89288) of America WestHoldings Corporation of our reports dated March 24, 2003 relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule of America West HoldingsCorporation, which appear in this Form 10-K. We also hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of our reports dated March 24, 2003 relating to the financialstatements and financial statement schedule of America West Airlines, Inc.,which appear in this Form 10-K.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### DOUG McCURLEY, INC. v. Thomas G. EVANS and Beverly H. Evans.

No. 52135.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 17, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 29, 1980.

Michael S. Allred, Thomas L. Kirkland, Jr., Satterfield & Allred, Jackson, for appellant.

Paul D. Snow, III, Jackson, for appellees.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; Jack A. Travis, Special Judge.

Before WALKER, BROOM and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C. J., took no part.
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.235 Patient-level adjustments. Adjustments to the per-treatment base rate may be made to account for variation in case-mix. These adjustments reflect patient characteristics that result in higher costs for ESRD facilities. ( a ) CMS adjusts the per treatment base rate for adults to account for patient age, body surface area, low body mass index, onset of dialysis (new patient), and co-morbidities, as specified by CMS.
( b ) CMS adjusts the per treatment base rate for Pediatric ESRD Patients in accordance with section 1881(b)(14)(D)(iv)(I) of the Act as follows: ( 1 ) To account for patient age and treatment modality; and
( 2 ) Beginning January 1, 2024, to provide a per-treatment transitional add-on payment adjustment of 30 percent of the per treatment payment amount under § 413.230 for renal dialysis services furnished to Pediatric ESRD Patients during calendar years 2024, 2025, and 2026.
( c ) CMS provides a wage-adjusted add-on per treatment adjustment for home and self-dialysis training.
[75 FR 49201, Aug. 12, 2010, as amended at 88 FR 76506, Nov. 6, 2023]
#### Thomas Armstsong, esq. *against*Joseph Boylan and others.

ON CERTIORARI.

Paper certified by surrogate. (b)

Illegal evidence not objected to at i trial, (a)

**See cases referred to *post 10%.*

*Fox vs. Lambson, 3 Hal. 275. Den. Harker vs. Gustin, 7 Hal. 42.*

OPINION of the court delivered by the Chief Justice.

Kirkpatrick O. J.

*Thomas Armstrong,*esqr. and *Anna ' Key ser,*had been the administrators of *Jasper Keyser,*deceased. Upon the settlement of their accounts before the Orphans’ Court of the county of *Sussex,*it is alleged that the sum of 200 dollars was allowed to them for their commissions; that this sum got into the hands of *Thomas*
      *85
      *Armstrong*the defendant, and that though *Anna Keyset*was justly entitled to one half thereof, viz. to 100 dollars,: yet, that the said defendant had refused to pay the same to her, during her life time. And to recover this 100 dollars, the plaintiffs, who are the executors of the last will of the said *Anna,*bring this suit.

So far as appears by the return of the justice, the only evidence offered on the trial, was a certificate of the surrogate of the said county of *Sussex,*stating that the Orphans’ Court, in the settlement of the account of the said administrators, had allowed the said sum of 200 dollars for commissions. This certificate is signed by the surrogate, and sealed with his official seal.

But this is not sufficient; for though it should be admitted, that the surrogate, who has the custody of the seal, might lawfully certify copies of any of the records or proceedings of the said *court, of which ho is the clerk, and that such certificate should be a sufficient authentication of such copies, to make them evidence in other courts, yet it can never be admitted, that he can, by fixing his official seal, give authenticity to a paper like this, which does not even pretend to be a copy of any record, proceeding, -or paper filed in his office, but a mere certificate of a fact remaining in his own memory, or, at most, brought to his memory by looking into the account filed. However accurate the surrogate may be in his statement (and it is believed no one who knows him, will doubt his accuracy) and however well satisfied the justice and others concerned, may have been of the truth of the fact certified, yet all this does not make the certificate lawful evidence. To make the most of the surrogate’s power in this respect, he-can only certify copies, not facts existing in his own knowledge, whether that knowledge depends upon his recollection alone, or upon the inspection of his office records.

The justice, in his additional return says, that when this paper was offered by the plaintiff, in evidence, *the defendant did not deny it.*But this is not enough. It has been well settled, that in these courts, the plaintiff offers his evidence at his peril; and that the defendant is not *86obliged to object to it; but may, without such objection, advantage of it on error.

This judgment, therefore, must be reversed.
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.1515 Plan of care requirements. ( a ) *Contents.* The plan of care must contain those items listed in § 486.520(b) of this chapter that specify the standards relating to a plan of care that a qualified home infusion therapy supplier must meet in order to participate in the Medicare program.
( b ) *Physician's orders.* The physician's orders for services in the plan of care must specify at what frequency the services will be furnished, as well as the discipline that will furnish the ordered professional services. Orders for care may indicate a specific range in frequency of visits to ensure that the most appropriate level of services is furnished.
( c ) *Plan of care signature requirements.* The plan of care must be signed and dated by the ordering physician prior to submitting a claim for payment. The ordering physician must sign and date the plan of care upon any changes to the plan of care.
41002.

#### ATLAS SUBSIDIARIES OF DELAWARE, INC. v. DAVIS.

Decided November 19, 1964

Rehearing denied December 2, 1964.

*766
      *Lipshutz, Macey, Zusmann & Sikes, Robert A. Eisner,*for plaintiff in error.

*Robert T. Efurd, Robert T. Efurd, Jr.,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. Special ground numbered 2 of the plaintiff’s amended motion for new trial assigns error: “Because the court, in its charge to the jury, failed to instruct the jury that it must find from the evidence adduced at the trial of the case, that at the time of the execution of said note, that the payee of said note was dealing with the defendant as a surety.” Had the trial court charged as contended for by the plaintiff it would have been tantamount to directing a verdict for the defendant where it was stipulated that the sole issue was whether the defendant had signed the note as a surety or in some other capacity. Obviously, the failure to charge the jury as contended for by the plaintiff was not harmful to the plaintiff.

2. The sole question remaining for decision is whether the *767verdict for the defendant was authorized. The defendant testified that the note and deed to secure debt were given for improvements to be made to the property owned by her husband. The recorded deed showing the title to such property to be in the defendant’s husband was introduced in evidence. Such recorded deed was notice to the named payee in such note that the property was owned by the defendant’s husband *(Woods v. Brannon,*208 Ga. 495, 67 SE2d 702), and that the improvements were made to his property.

The fact that such note was given for improvements made to the property of the defendant’s husband is supported by the indorsement on the back of the note, transferring it to the plaintiff, which read in part as follows: “In consideration of the purchase of this instrument by . . . [plaintiff] . . . , and intending to be legally bound thereby, the undersigned [original payee] warrant, in addition to those warranties implied by law, that all bills for labor and materials have been paid and that no mechanics liens have or will be filed against the premises on account of the work being performed; that the work has been completed satisfactorily. . .”

The defendant testified that she received no consideration for signing the note, that she did so at the request of her husband, and it was not shown that she signed any contract for the improvement of the real estate owned by her husband, or that her husband signed any such contract acting as her agent. Under the decision of *Hodges v. Gillespie,*13 Ga. App. 63 (78 SE 832), and similar cases the verdict was authorized by the evidence. See also *Dobbins v. Blanchard,*94 Ga. 500 (21 SE 215); *Smith v. Hardman,*99 Ga. 381 (27 SE 731); *Jones v. Weichselbaum,*115 Ga. 369 (41 SE 615); and *Bozeman v. Brock,*58 Ga. App. 816 (200 SE 182). The trial court did not err in overruling plaintiff’s motion for new trial on the usual general grounds or on the special ground seeking a judgment non obstante veredicto.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Russell, JJ., concur.*
#### Sandy GOODMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1403.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 28, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; McDonald, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
# Countries & Areas

		Subscribe		

198 items

        -    		Switzerland	  April 25, 2019 
        -    		Syria	  April 23, 2019 
        -    		Taiwan	  April 22, 2019 
        -    		Tajikistan	  April 23, 2019 
        -    		Tanzania	  April 22, 2019 
        -    		Thailand	  April 22, 2019 
        -    		The Bahamas	  April 23, 2019 
        -    		The Gambia	  April 22, 2019 
        -    		Timor-Leste	  April 22, 2019 
        -    		Togo	  August 2, 2019 

previous page1…1617181920next page

Back to Top
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsLow Temperature Characterization of Ceramic and Film Power CapacitorsAmong the key requirements for advanced electronic systems is the ability to withstand harsh environments while maintaining reliable and efficient operation. Exposures to low temperature as well as high temperature constitute such stresses. Applications where low temperatures are encountered include deep space missions, medical imaging equipment, and cryogenic instrumentation. Efforts were taken to design and develop power capacitors capable of wide temperature operation. In this work, ceramic and film power capacitors were developed and characterized as a function of temperature from 20 C to -185 C in terms of their dielectric properties. These properties included capacitance stability and dielectric loss in the frequency range of 50 Hz to 100 kHz. DC leakage current measurements were also performed on the capacitors. The manuscript presents the results that indicate good operational characteristic behavior and stability of the components tested at low temperatures.Document ID19960045835Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsHammoud, Ahmad*(NYMA, Inc. Brook Park, OH United States)*Overton, Eric*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1996Subject CategoryElectronics And Electrical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-107308E-10397NAS 1.15:107308Meeting InformationMeeting: 1996 Conference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric PhenomenaLocation: Millbrae, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: October 20, 1996End Date: October 23, 1996Sponsors:Institute of Electrical and Electronics EngineersAccession Number96N32703Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 233-01-0CCONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-27186Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19960045835.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
# C_2005318EN.01000501.xml

| 14.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4023 — Industri Kapital/GUS Holland Holding)

(2005/C 318/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 7 December 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M4023. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M4023. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.1355 Improvement activities performance category. ( a ) For a MIPS payment year, CMS uses improvement activities included in the MIPS final inventory of improvement activities established by CMS through rulemaking to assess performance in the improvement activities performance category.
( b ) Unless a different scoring weight is assigned by CMS under section 1848(q)(5)(F) of the Act, performance in the improvement activities performance category comprises: ( 1 ) 15 percent of a MIPS eligible clinician's final score for MIPS payment year 2019 and for each MIPS payment year thereafter.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) The following are the list of subcategories, of which, with the exception of Participation in an APM, include activities for selection by a MIPS eligible clinician or group: ( 1 ) Expanded practice access, such as same day appointments for urgent needs and after-hours access to clinician advice.
( 2 ) Population management, such as monitoring health conditions of individuals to provide timely health care interventions or participation in a QCDR.
( 3 ) Care coordination, such as timely communication of test results, timely exchange of clinical information to patients or other clinicians, and use of remote monitoring or telehealth.
( 4 ) Beneficiary engagement, such as the establishment of care plans for individuals with complex care needs, beneficiary self-management assessment and training, and using shared decision making mechanisms.
( 5 ) Patient safety and practice assessment, such as through the use of clinical or surgical checklists and practice assessments related to maintaining certification.
( 6 ) Participation in an APM.
( 7 ) Achieving health equity, such as for MIPS eligible clinicians that achieve high quality for underserved populations, including persons with behavioral health conditions, racial and ethnic minorities, sexual and gender minorities, people with disabilities, people living in rural areas, and people in geographic HPSAs.
( 8 ) Emergency preparedness and response, such as measuring MIPS eligible clinician participation in the Medical Reserve Corps, measuring registration in the Emergency System for Advance Registration of Volunteer Health Professionals, measuring relevant reserve and active duty uniformed services MIPS eligible clinician activities, and measuring MIPS eligible clinician volunteer participation in domestic or international humanitarian medical relief work.
( 9 ) Integrated behavioral and mental health, such as measuring or evaluating such practices as: Co-location of behavioral health and primary care services; shared/integrated behavioral health and primary care records; cross training of MIPS eligible clinicians, and integrating behavioral health with primary care to address substance use disorders or other behavioral health conditions, as well as integrating mental health with primary care.
[81 FR 77537, Nov. 4, 2016, as amended at 83 FR 60079, Nov. 23, 2018]