alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Christopher Bolduc [mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov]

Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 1:15 PM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com;

john.caskey@nema.org; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com;

john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org;

gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com;

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

dave.millure@metglas.com; snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com; srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org;

robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com;

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org;

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; jmauer@standardsasap.org;

Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; jrossetti@mlgw.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org;

kwinder@mleainc.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; Brian Coffey; kcoughlin@lbl.gov;

brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov; Caitlin Johnson; Zhimei

Luo; emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov; Michael Rivest; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

charlied@uus.org; phopkinson@hvolt.com; James.Lass@cleco.com;

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com;

chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com;

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

‐ electric.com;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; Raba, Jim

Subject: MV Liquid

‐ Immersed LCC Results at custom efficiencies

Dear Committee Members,

It was requested by some committee members that LCC results be prepared for

liquid

‐ immersed transformers at efficiencies between EL 0 and 1. The attached

draft LCC results were prepared as background information only, and are currently

not being considered as efficiency levels.

Thank you,

‐‐ Chris

‐‐‐‐

Chris Bolduc

Energy Efficiency Standards Group

Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

t. 416

‐ 535

‐ 7546 c. 647

‐ 832

‐ 4021
#### John H. Thompson, Respondent, *v.*Samuel Love, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan.

P. O. Taiman, for appellant.

0. E. Thomall, for respondent.

*Per Guriam.*

The trial justice upon sufficient evidence has found the facts in favor of the plaintiff, and his conclusions in that regard will not be. disturbed on appeal. The agreement between the parties having thus been established, we think it was correctly construed by the court below and that the judgment there rendered in favor of the plaintiff was right.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerioh and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Gerard Barry, Respondent, *v.*William J. Rainey, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from á judgment of the Municipal Court, sixth district, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

Howard A. Taylor, for appellant.

Philip Carpenter^ for respondent.

Freedman, P. J.

The plaintiff firings this action to recover the sum of $500, the agreed price for painting a portrait, of the defendant.

The plaintiff, at the time the work was done, had a studio in the city ’of New York, and the defendant resided in the city of Cleveland, Ohio!

The plaintiff alleges and attempts to prove, that the- terms of the contract between the parties were, that, if the picture when com'pleted was satisfactory to him (plaintiff), the defendant was bound • to accept and pay'the agreed price therefor. The testimony is undisputed, that at a time when the defendant and his family were in the city of New York, the plaintiff visited and repeatedly asked the defendant to have his picture painted by plaintiff, and said that he (plaintiff) *“*had no work in Cleveland, and wanted one picture in Cleveland,” evidently by way of aiding his business. The defendant claims that by the terms of the contract, under which the portrait was painted, it was agreed that unless the picture was satis*773factory to him, he should not he compelled to pay for it, and that it was. not satisfactory to himself or the members of his family.

In this contention he is supported by the testimony of his wife, who was present at many of the conversations. between the parties upon that subject.

The defendant also testifies that the picture was' framed and sent to Cleveland to defendant’s home, at the request' of the plaintiff, and upon his assurance that the framing would-cure the defects existing in the picture, but which it failed to do, and the picture was thereupon reshipped to the plaintiff, and the defendant refused to accept or pay for it. The plaintiff assumed the burden of proof in the case, and was bound to establish, by a fair preponderance of evidence, that the contract was as he claimed it to, be. . This he failed to do. From his own statement as to what he said to defendant at the times he solicited the work, it is not clear that he *expressly*said:- *“*That the painting should be taken-by defendant, if it was satisfactory to plaintiff.” He repeatedly says: “I meant to me, when I said it should be satisfactory.” Contracts, like the one at bar, when sought to be enforced must be determined-by the words actually used. 'Their méáning cannot be derived „ from what existed solely in the mind of one of the parties. Moreover, the claim of the plaintiff as to what the contract ’was, is improbable on its face. The right of refusal to accept the picture does not appear to have been exercised, by the defendant, in an unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary manner. The plaintiff having failed to maintain the burden of proof required, the judgment must be reversed. ■ ....

MacLean. and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, hew trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event. .
Order filed, April 9, 2012.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 12

- 00105

- CV

____________

DONALD W. SOWELL , Appellant

V.

INTERNATIONAL INTERE STS, LP , Appellee

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texa s Trial Court Cause No. 2009

- 07184



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due March 11, 2012 , 2012

. See Tex. R. App. P.

35.1. On March 14, 2012 , this court notified the court reporter to file the record within 15 days.

The record has not been fi led with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed
timely, we issue the following order.

We order Susan Leediker

, t h e o f f i c i a l c o u r t r e p o r t e r , to file the record in this appeal
within 30 days of the d ate of this order

. No further extension will be entertained absent
exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that
the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Susan Leediker does nottimely file the record as ordered, we will issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a

hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

. SE 04 331A0 28
§ 45.205 Professional and technical services. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 45.100(a), does not apply in the case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or an extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement if payment is for professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid, proposal, or application for that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, “professional and technical services” shall be limited to advice and analysis directly applying any professional or technical discipline. For example, drafting of a legal document accompanying a bid or proposal by a lawyer is allowable. Similarly, technical advice provided by an engineer on the performance or operational capability of a piece of equipment rendered directly in the negotiation of a contract is allowable. However, communications with the intent to influence made by a professional (such as a licensed lawyer) or a technical person (such as a licensed accountant) are not allowable under this section unless they provide advice and analysis directly applying their professional or technical expertise and unless the advice or analysis is rendered directly and solely in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action. Thus, for example, communications with the intent to influence made by a lawyer that do not provide legal advice or analysis directly and solely related to the legal aspects of his or her client's proposal, but generally advocate one proposal over another are not allowable under this section because the lawyer is not providing professional legal services. Similarly, communications with the intent to influence made by an engineer providing an engineering analysis prior to the preparation or submission of a bid or proposal are not allowable under this section since the engineer is providing technical services but not directly in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action.
( c ) Requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving a covered Federal award include those required by law or regulation, or reasonably expected to be required by law or regulation, and any other requirements in the actual award documents.
( d ) Only those services expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 10394 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:12

- cr - 00167

- GAP

- GJK

- 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus MICHAEL PATRICK WAHL, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (November 14, 2013) Before MARCUS , MARTIN and BLACK , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-10394 Date Filed: 11/14/2013 Page: 1 of 32 Mark Wahl appeals his 120

- month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and manufacture marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute marijuana , in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841( a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii), (b)(1)(D), and 2

. Wahl contends his mandatory minimum 120

- month sentence was not just, fair, or appropriate, and implicated his Eighth Amendment right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. He concedes , however, there is no case law on point to support his position.

“ We review de novo the legality of a sentence under the Eighth Amendment. ” United States v. McGarity , 669 F.3d 1218, 1255 (11th Cir. 2012).

“ O ur jurisprudence recognizes a ‘narrow proportionality pri nciple that applies to noncapital sentences.” Id. at 1255

- 56 (citing United States v Johnson , 451 F.3d 1239, 1242 (11th Cir. 2006) ) . When addressing an Eighth Amendment challenge: a reviewing court must make a threshold determination that the sentence i mposed is grossly disproportionate to the offense committed and, if it is grossly disproportionate, the court must then consider the sentences imposed on others convicted in the same jurisdiction and the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime i n other jurisdictions. United States v. Raad , 406 F.3d 1322, 1324 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The burden lies with the defendant to m ake a threshold showing that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense. McGarity , 669 F.3d at 1256. We have upheld m andatory minimum sentences in various contexts. See Raad , 406 F. 3d at 1324 (outlining case law upholding mandatory minimum

Case: 13-10394 Date Filed: 11/14/2013 Page: 2 of 33 sentences). Sentences as high as m andatory life have been held consti tutional by the Supreme Court. See Har melin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957, 994

- 95 (1991)

. Wahl has failed to carry his burden to make a threshold showing that his sentence viol ated the Eighth Amendment, and has conceded that no c ase law supports his position

. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Case: 13-10394 Date Filed: 11/14/2013 Page: 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         104,208
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  999,180
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    671,167
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,151,592
<PP&E>                                         348,771
<DEPRECIATION>                                 135,168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,404,417
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,696,071
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,777
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,751,772
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,404,417
<SALES>                                      1,579,619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,579,619
<CGS>                                          831,079
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  831,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,046,696
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,433
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (312,589)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (109,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (203,589)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (203,589)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>
#### §§ 20.1107-20.1199 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 186 (Monday, September 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 49403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Notice of a Change in Status of an Extended Benefit (EB) Period 
for Idaho

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility 
under the EB program for Idaho.
    The following change has occurred since the publication of the last 
notice regarding Idaho's EB status:
    <bullet> Idaho has modified its law by adding a total unemployment 
rate (TUR) trigger. As a result, Idaho triggered ``on'' to a high 
unemployment period (HUP) for weeks of unemployment beginning September 
6, 2009, and eligible unemployed workers will be able to collect up to 
an additional 20 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits.

Information for Claimants

    The duration of benefits payable in the EB program, and the terms 
and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and 
the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department 
of Labor. In the case of a state beginning a HUP, the State Workforce 
Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement to each 
individual who has exhausted all rights to regular benefits and is 
potentially eligible for EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(1)). Persons who believe 
they may be entitled to EB or who wish to inquire about their rights 
under the program should contact their State Workforce Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce 
Security, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Frances Perkins Bldg. Room S-
4231, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-3008 (this is 
not a toll-free number) or by e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0f68666d6d60617c217c6c607b7b4f6b606321686079"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ea8d838888858499c49989859e9eaa8e8586c48d859c">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of September, 2009.
Jane Oates,
Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-23354 Filed 9-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 17.1220 Provision of emergent suicide care. ( a ) Emergent suicide care will be provided to individuals eligible under § 17.1210 only if it is determined by a health care provider to be clinically necessary and in accord with generally accepted standards of medical practice.
( b ) Prescription drugs, biologicals, and medical devices that may be provided during a period of emergent suicide care under § 17.1215 must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, unless the treating VA facility or non-VA facility is conducting formal clinical trials under an Investigational Device Exemption or an Investigational New Drug application, or the drugs, biologicals, or medical devices are prescribed under a compassionate use exemption.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48902-48903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23204]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Prop Canyon Watershed, Site 1 (Big Draw Dam), Cibola County, NM

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
(40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an 
environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Prop 
Canyon Watershed, Site 1, Grant County, New Mexico.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Ford, State Conservation 
Engineer, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 6200 Jefferson 
Street, NE., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109, Telephone 505-761-4430, E-
mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#12607d7577603c747d6076527c7f3c676176733c757d64"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2f5d40484a5d0149405d4b6f4142015a5c4b4e01484059">[email protected]</span></a>.

[[Page 48903]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Environmental Assessment of the 
federally-assisted action indicates that the project will not cause 
significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As 
a result of these findings, Dennis Alexander, State Conservationist, 
has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental 
impact statement is not needed for this project.
    The project purpose is to improve public safety by reducing the 
threat of dam failure. The planned works include the installation of a 
filter, confining berm, restoration of the original dam cross-sectional 
shape, and the addition of a gravel shell over the dam's slope and 
crest. The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) has been 
forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency; various Federal, 
state, and local agencies; and interested parties. A limited number of 
copies of the FNSI are available to fill single copy requests at the 
above address. Basic data developed during the EA are on file and may 
be reviewed by contacting Roger Ford. No administrative action on 
implementation of the proposed action will be taken until 30 days after 
the date of this publication in the Federal Register.

Rosabeth Garcia-Sais,
State Administrative Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-23204 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 186 (Monday, September 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 49438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23272]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

September 22, 2009.
    The Department of the Treasury will submit the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or 
after the date of publication of this notice. Copies of the 
submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 
Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should 
be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department 
Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11020, 1750 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before October 28, 
2009 to be assured of consideration.

Office of Foreign Portfolio Investment

    OMB Number: 1505-0146.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Survey of U.S. Ownership of Foreign Securities.
    Description: The survey will collect information on U.S. holdings 
of foreign securities. The information will be used in the computation 
of the U.S. balance of payments accounts and international investments 
position, as well as in the formulation of U.S. financial and monetary 
policies. This survey is also part of an international effort 
coordinated by the IMF to improve worldwide balance of payments 
statistics. Respondents are primarily the largest banks, securities 
dealers, and investors.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 40,740 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Dwight Wolkow, (202) 622-2176, 1500 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, Room 2064D, Washington, DC 20220.
    OMB Reviewer: OIRA Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 
Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0867617a69577b7d6a65617b7b6167664867656a266d6778266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ae5e3f8ebd5f9ffe8e7e3f9f9e3e5e4cae5e7e8a4efe5faa4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a>.

Robert Dahl,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-23272 Filed 9-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 20.105 Rule 105. Criteria governing disposition of appeals.

In the consideration of appeals and in its decisions, the Board is bound by applicable statutes, regulations of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and precedent opinions of the General Counsel of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Board is not bound by Department manuals, circulars, or similar administrative issues.

[84 FR 4337, Feb. 15, 2019]