alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Summary of Morgan-Lewis meeting on EPA’ s regulation developm ent for CERCLA 108(b)

Date/time: 1/22/10, 12:00 pm – 1:45 pm,

Location: Morgan-Lewis law offices at 1111 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC

Attendees: Jim Berlow, Ben Lesser, David Hock ey, Michael Steinberg of Morgan Lewis, representatives of Waste Management, FMC, DuPont, Chevron, Freeport-McMoRan, GE, United Technologies.

Berlow: (Sketches out the scope of the CE RCLA 108b effort and general timeline for proposed rules publication.)

Steinberg: If the agency under CERCLA devel oped its HRS and set the score level at 28.5, how does it make sense for the agency to now co me in to say that it may require financial responsibility of sites that rank be low that level of concern?

Waste Management: Existing RCRA protections are arguably (and should be) protective; the Risk Assessment that was prepared to support th em was, if anything, conservative. Why this

now?

Hockey/Berlow: Lots of discretion in the stat ute; room for flexibility. We are building a very good database to hold whatever data the group members contribute

DuPont: A lot of private money is going into CERCLA settlements; DuPont fully funds all that it is engaged in—no federal funding is used..

Hockey: We would like to have any of that in formation to help us in developing our rule.

Steinberg: Are federal agencies / POTWs covered?

Berlow: No decisions have been made.

GE/Steinberg: Suggest establishing a web site asking specific questions on which you want comments and functioning as a portal for submissions.

DuPont: Please try to be clear and transparent so that indivi dual facilities don’t have to

have their own individual risk assessments.

Waste Management: How can Best Management Practices (BMPs) be incentivized? A requirement that is equal for all and does not give credit for BMPs disincentivizes them.

Steinberg: Just because one vessel fails, for ex ample, how can you extrapolate to the idea that others will necessarily fail and therefor e justify a prospective financial responsibility requirement?Hockey: We will run Monte Carlo analyses for every contingency.

Berlow: It depends on whethe r we allow a Financial Test.

Waste Management: Strongly hope you do use one. You could require a se cure test—maybe an investment-grade security.

GE: One problem we run into with states is their frank admission that they don’t have the resources to properly evaluate the financial test for adequacy. C onsider establishing a Center of Excellence at EPA that could perform this task or transfer knowledge to states.

Waste Management: Another problem with states is apparently arbitrary variations in policy with no rational explanations.

Steinberg: Suggest investigating Licensed Site Professionals (as in MA) as 3 rd party certifiers or approvers of effective financia l assurance. This works well.

Lesser: You might try brainstorm ing ways to apply the financial test in ways that won’t ride roughshod over concerns of, say, EPA’s enforc ement office. Also, if you want BMPs incentivized, give us specific suggestions for which ones and how that might be done.

The meeting adjourned.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                         4,384
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  31,132
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    24,034
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               62,000
<PP&E>                                         85,290
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,903
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 179,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          411,870
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    200,233
<COMMON>                                       259,870
<OTHER-SE>                                     (692,367)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   179,606
<SALES>                                        10,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22,447
<CGS>                                          20,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               72,846
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (145,464)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (145,464)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (145,464)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (145,464)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.04)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                           EXHIBIT 10.10(f)

                    UNOVA, INC.-AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE
                     LITTON INDUSTRIES, INC. 1984 LONG-TERM
                        STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN, AS AMENDED

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13 of the Litton Industries, Inc. 1984 Long-Term
Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the "1984 Plan") the Board of Directors of
Litton Industries, Inc. (the "Board") has the authority to amend the 1984 Plan;

WHEREAS, the Board has passed a resolution that the proper officers of Litton
Industries, Inc. ("Litton") be authorized to amend the 1984 Plan to provide
that employment with UNOVA, Inc. will constitute employment with Litton for
purposes of any 1984 Plan options held by any employee of Western Atlas Inc.
who becomes an employee of UNOVA, Inc. as a result of the distribution of the
shares of common stock of UNOVA, Inc. by Western Atlas Inc. to the shareholders
of Western Atlas Inc.;

NOW THEREFORE, the 1984 is hereby amended as follows:

Pursuant to Section 13 of the 1984 Plan, a new section 11(c) is added to the
1984 Plan as follows:

"(c)    If a Grantee is an employee of Western Atlas Inc. on the day before a
        distribution of the shares of the common stock of UNOVA, Inc. by Western
        Atlas Inc. to the shareholders of Western Atlas Inc., and if, as a
        result of such distribution, such Grantee is employed by UNOVA, Inc.,
        then he or she will be considered to be an Employee for purposes of this
        Program, so long as he or she continues to be employed by UNOVA, Inc."

This Amendment Number One to the 1984 Plan shall be effective as of the 18th day
of September, 1997.



                                By: /s/ TIMOTHY G. PAULSON
                                   ---------------------------
                                   Timothy G. Paulson



                            Attest: /s/ JEANETTE M. THOMAS
                                   ----------------------------
                                   Jeanette M. Thomas
#### George Vidette, App’lt *v.*Francis D. Dudley, Resp’t.

*(New York Superior Court,*

*General Term,*

*Filed February, 1889.)*

1. Examination of party before trial—When order may be had.

Plaintiff may have an order for the examination of the defendant "before trial in an action for injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of defendant in selling to plaintiff a tool which the former knew was dangerous and unfit for use for the purpose of showing that the defendant was the manufacturer, such fact bearing upon the question of the negligence of defendant', that plaintiff could establish such fact by other witnesses is no objection to such order.

3. Same—Affidavit—Sufficiency of allegation to show nature of action.

The nature of the action is sufficiently shown by an allegation in the moving papers, that the action is brought to recove: damages for a personal injury resulting from defendant’s negligence.

Appeal from an order of the special term, vacating an -order for the examination of the defendant before trial.

*David*Keane, for app’lt; *Friend & House,*for resp’t.

*21Truax, J.

The action was brought to recover damages for injuries which the plaintiff alleges he sustained through the action of the defendants in selling the plaintiff an instrument or tool which the plaintiff alleges the defendants knew was dangerous and unfit for use. The allegation of the complaint, “that the defendant did not exercise due care or skill in manufacturing the catheter,” is not an allegation that the defendant did manufacture the catheter, but it is relevant to one of the material issues of the action, namely, the negligence of the defendant in selling the instrument, for they would be more likely to know the nature of an instrument that they had made, than they would be to know of one that they had not made, and their obligations would be greater in the one case than in the other. For this reason, that is, because it tends to show the negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff had a right to show by the defendant or any one else, that the defendant manufactured the instrument. Nor is it necessary that the plaintiff should have alleged in his moving papers, that there was no other witness by whom he could establish this fact. He has a right, if he sees fit, to call his adversary to prove his case.

It is objected by the defendant that the moving papers do not show “the nature of the action.” This objection is not well taken. The allegation that the action is brought to recover damages for a personal injury resulting from de-' fendant’s negligence, is a sufficient statement of the nature of the action. The plaintiff has complied with the requirements of the Code and the rules of practice, and was entitled to examine the defendant. The order vacating the order to examine the defendant as a party before trial, is reversed, and the examination is directed to proceed, with costs of this appeal to the appellant.

Sedgwick, Oh. J., concurs.
§ 1952.26 The Virgin Islands. ( a ) The Virgin Islands State plan for Public Employees Only was approved on July 23, 2003.
( b ) The plan only covers State and local government employers and employees within the State. For additional details about the plan, please visit *http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/virgin_islands.html .*
----

----

I Meddelanden

Kommissionen

----

Eurons växelkurs (1)

4 augusti 2004

(2004/C 198/01)

1 Euro= 

----

(1)

Källa: Referensväxelkurs offentliggjord av Europeiska centralbanken.

----
#### BARTLETT v WHEELING & LAKE ERIE RY CO

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Erie Co

No 332.

Decided June 23, 1930

Krueger & Rosino, Sandusky, and New-comb, Newcomb and Nord, Cleveland, for Bartlett.

Young & Young, Norwalk, for Railway Co.

*495LLOYD, J.

The principles of law applicable to the issues here involved are too well settled to require comment. The only question is whether the facts thus narrated tend to prove that the alleged assault was committed by the conductor in the course of his employment.

Nelson Business College vs. Lloyd, 60 Ohio St., 448.

We think the evidence adduced is such as to require the submission to the jury of the issues involved and that therefore the court of common pleas erred in directing a verdict for the railway company.

In addition to the alleged assault, the plaintiff charged in his second amended petition that his

> “injuries were also due to the carelessness and negligence of the defendant company in that the conductor which assaulted the plaintiff as above set forth had a violent, vicious and dangerous disposition and quarrelsome nature, all of which the defendant company knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, but still retained him in the service of the defendant, making it unsafe and hazardous for plaintiff in his work.”

and sought at the trial to prove the facts so alleged. The record however, in our judgment, presents no evidence of actionable negligence in support of these latter allegations.

On August 10th, 1929, the plaintiff filed a petition in the court of common pleas of Huron County, wherein he seeks to recover $10,000.00 against the Village of Huron for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him by stepping into an open manhole on Homan Street in said Village. In this petition he alleges having received certain injuries of the same nature as alleged in his second amended petition in the instant case, which latter petition was filed by him on November 26, 1929. The petition first referred to was offered by the railway company and received in evidence as part of the cross examination of the plaintiff over the objection and exception of the plaintiff. This is only incidentally important on the assumption that this petition will again be offered upon the retrial of the instant case, and that objection will again be made thereto. In view of the fact that part of the injuries narrated therein are of the same character as those alleged in plaintiff’s second amended petition in the instant case and are charged in each petition to have been caused by acts therein alleged, it was properly admitted in evidence.

For the reason aforesaid, the judgment of the court of common pleas is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Williams and Richards, JJ, concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection
with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Enstar Group, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certifies that:

    (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

         /s/Cheryl D. Davis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl D. Davis
Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Corporate
Taxes, and Secretary
March 30, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Enstar Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Enstar Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 21



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



The following is a list of the Company's subsidiaries:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            Percentage                 Jurisdiction of
Name                                        Owned                      Incorporation
----                                        -----                      -------------
<S>                                         <C>                        <C>
LeaRonal (UK) plc                           100%                       England

LeaRonal AG                                  93%                       Switzerland

LeaRonal GmbH                               100%                       Germany

LeaRonal France                              85%                       France

LeaRonal Korea, Inc.                         80%                       South Korea

LeaRonal Asia Ltd.                           80%                       Hong Kong

LeaRonal Singapore Pte, Ltd.                 86%                       Singapore

LeaRonal Taiwan                              80%                       Taiwan

LeaRonal Pacific Corp.                      100%                       New York

Lea-Ronal Export Sales, Inc.                100%                       New York

Ronal Foreign Sales Corp.                   100%                       U.S. Virgin Islands
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         9,071
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               11,500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    33,600
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           0
<LOANS>                                        68,961
<ALLOWANCE>                                    960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,294
<DEPOSITS>                                     88,724
<SHORT-TERM>                                   26,800
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            564
<LONG-TERM>                                    7,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,993
<COMMON>                                       6,643
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,048)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 131,294
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                2,853
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              645
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               114
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               3,612
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1,060
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,582
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          2,030
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  50
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                2,561
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (129)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (138)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.31)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 4.50
<LOANS-NON>                                    665
<LOANS-PAST>                                   339
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               487
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                3,820
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               549
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  59
<RECOVERIES>                                   18
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              960
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           791
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        169



</TABLE>
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Population Statistics: Disability Type /
              - 15.3 Employed—Civilians Ages 21 to 64 Years Living in the Community for the United States, by Disability Type

## Table 15.3: Employed—Civilians Ages 21 to 64 Years Living in the Community for the United States,by DisabilityType: 2010

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
#### BUTLER v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 90-110 AC

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

February 25, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

John M. Butler, pro se.

Avi Litwin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Before HENDERSON, LEVINE, GREEN, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

LEVINE, J.

On November 29, 1988, law enforcement officers from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission seized two alligators from John Butler and cited him for certain statutory wildlife offenses. On or about March 8, 1990, the trial court dismissed the charges against Butler for lack of prosecution. The charges were not refiled.

*43Mr. Butler then filed his Motion for Return of Property; namely, the two alligators. The trial judgment granted his motion, but later set aside the order because the Game Commission had not been noticed and heard on the original motion. Upon full hearing, the trial court denied the motion for return of the alligators.

The trial court erred in denying the motion to return the alligators. No charges were then pending against Mr. Butler, and the State had not announced that charges would be refiled. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission never gave Mr. Butler any notice of any civil action against him, and he had no remedy to retrieve his alligators. The alligators were seized and kept without providing Mr. Butler a due process hearing, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution.

Accordingly, the order denying the return of the alligators to Mr. Butler is Reversed. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission is hereby directed to return the alligators to Mr. Butler, or to specify in writing to this Court and all parties why it cannot comply with this order, within thirty days from the date of this order.

HENDERSON AND GREEN, JJ., concur.