alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Camilo Banegaz, Respondent, v F.L. Smithe Machine Co., Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Commercial Envelope Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 143]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered October 19, 1998, which, in an action by plaintiff worker against defendant product manufacturer to recover for work site injuries that required the complete amputation of plaintiffs right ring finger and partial amputation of his right pinky finger, denied the motion of third-party defendant, plaintiffs employer, for summary *114judgment dismissing the manufacturer’s third-party complaint for lack of a “ ‘grave injury’ ” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

To read the phrase “loss of multiple fingers” to mean, as the employer urges, a total loss of multiple fingers would be to render superfluous the word “total” selectively used before the phrase “loss of use * * * of a[] * * * hand”. Had the Legislature intended that the “loss of multiple fingers” must be “total” in order to qualify as a grave injury, it would have used that word immediately before that phrase. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.
STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DIVISION OF AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT 156 S. STATE STREET TELEPHONE: (302) 739 - 9402 SECTION DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 FAX No.: (302) 739 - 3106

CERTIFICAnON May 26,2009 I hereby certifythat apublic hearing was held July 31, 2008, on the State ofDelaware State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Attainment and Maintenance ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone. The revisions are to 36 regulations, which have already been approved byEPA, and includemaking administrative and non-substantive changes to all Delaware SIP Regulations and to make the regulations consistent with the 2006 Delaware Manual for DraftingRegulations. The effective date ofthese revisions is September 11, 2008. I further certifythat the hearing was held in accordance with the noticerequired by Subsection 51.102 of40 CFR 51.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 88 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 88

To increase the penalty for failure to comply with lobbying disclosure 
                             requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To increase the penalty for failure to comply with lobbying disclosure 
                             requirements.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INCREASED PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOBBYING 
              DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 7 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1606) is 
amended by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$200,000''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 2.14 Proceedings in which the Department balances conflicting values.

In proceedings not covered by §§ 2.12 and 2.13, the Department should determine whether the public's right to know outbalances the individual's right to privacy. When audiovisual coverage is restricted or excluded, the record shall state fully the reasons for such restriction or exclusion. For example, there would be included in this category hearings before the Board of Contract Appeals involving appeals from contracting officer decisions involving claims for extra costs for extra work, extra costs for delay in completion caused by the Government or for changes in the work, conformity hearings arising under State unemployment insurance laws, etc.
EXHIBIT 23




INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
Nos. 2-89135; 33-13618; and 33-28533 of Kinark Corporation on Forms S-8 of our
report dated February 14, 1997, except as to the second paragraph of the Long-
Term Debt footnote for which the date is March 11, 1997 appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kinark Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 1996.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Tulsa, Oklahoma
March 31, 1997
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/3409 — TPG GROUP / FRANCISCO PARTNERS / SMART JV)

(2004/C 174/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 14 April 2004, 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 (EEC) No 4064/89. 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:

CELEX: subscriber information

http://publications.eu.int/general/en/eulaw_en.htm

----
Exhibit 24.02


POWER OF ATTORNEY


     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned Director and/or
officer of Kinark Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby
constitutes and appoints Paul R. Chastain the true and lawful agent and
attorney-in-fact of the undersigned with full power of substitution and
authority to sign for the undersigned, as Director or an officer of the
Company, or as both, the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the period ended
December 31, 1996, and any and all exhibits and amendments thereto to be filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C. pursuant to
Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; hereby
ratifying and confirming all acts taken by such agent and attorney-in-fact as
herein authorized.

                              DATED:  March 25, 1997.

                              /s/ Michael T. Crimmins
                                   Michael T. Crimmins
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 24

                          DIRECTORS AND/OR OFFICERS OF
                               PENTON MEDIA, INC.

                           ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

      KNOW ALL MEN BY THERE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors and
officers of Penton Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby constitutes and
appoints David B. Nussbaum and Preston L. Vice, and each of them, as the true
and lawful attorney-in-fact or attorneys-in-fact, with full power of
substitution and revocation, for each of the undersigned and in the name, place
and stead of each of the undersigned, to sign on behalf of each of the
undersigned an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2005 pursuant to Section 13 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and to
sign any and all amendments to such Annual Report, and to file the same, with
all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including,
without limitation, a Form 12b-25, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting to said attorney-in-fact or attorneys-in-fact, and each of them, full
power and authority to do so and perform each and every act and thing requisite
and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorney-in-fact or attorneys-in-fact or any of them or
their substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

This Power of Attorney may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original with respect to the person executing it.

Executed as of this 21st day of March 2006.
<TABLE>
<S>                                                     <C>
/s/ DAVID B. NUSSBAUM                                   /s/ HARLAN A. LEVY
---------------------                                   ------------------
David B. Nussbaum                                       Harlan A. Levy
Chief Executive Officer and Director                    Director
(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ PRESTON L. VICE                                     /s/ PERRY A. SOOK
-------------------                                     -----------------
Preston L. Vice                                         Perry A. Sook
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary                      Director
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

/s/ ROYCE YUDKOFF                                       /s/ DAVID POWERS
-----------------                                       --------------------
Royce Yudkoff                                           David Powers
Chairman                                                Director

/s/ VINCENT D. KELLY                                    /s/ ADRIAN KINGSHOTT
--------------------                                    --------------------
Vincent D. Kelly                                        Adrian Kingshott
Director                                                Director

/s/ PENI A. GARBER
------------------
Peni A. Garber
Director
</TABLE>
§ 23.580 Administrator ruling. ( a ) Questions regarding the application and interpretation of the rules contained in this part may be referred to the Administrator, who shall issue an appropriate ruling. Requests for such rulings should be addressed to the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210.
( b ) Any interested party may appeal to the Administrative Review Board for review of a final ruling of the Administrator issued under paragraph (a) of this section. The petition for review shall be filed with the Administrative Review Board within 30 calendar days of the date of the ruling.
§ 95.3 Symbols. For the purposes of this part— ( a ) *COP* means changeover point.
( b ) *L* means compass locator;
( c ) *LF/MF* means low frequency, medium frequency;
( d ) *LFR* means low frequency radio range;
( e ) *VOR-E* means VOR and distance measuring equipment; and
( f ) *Z* means a very high frequency location marker.
[Doc. No. 1580, 28 FR 6718, June 29, 1963, as amended by Amdt. 95-118, 29 FR 13166, Sept. 23, 1964]
§ 36.545 Pre-employment inquiries. ( a ) *Marital status.* A recipient shall not make pre-employment inquiry as to the marital status of an applicant for employment, including whether such applicant is “Miss” or “Mrs.”
( b ) *Sex.* A recipient may make pre-employment inquiry as to the sex of an applicant for employment, but only if such inquiry is made equally of such applicants of both sexes and if the results of such inquiry are not used in connection with discrimination prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
1 

EPA/Nevada Air Agencies Meeting 

January 21, 2016 

9:00 AM – 2:30 PM 

Location: Las Vegas Airport, Room 3

Conference Bridge: - Code: 

1. Introductions; Organizational charts; Agency updates (“What’s New”) (15 minutes) 

2. Grant / Funding Issues (EPA) (5 minutes) 

3. Permitting (45 minutes) 

a. Title-V audit follow up (NDEP) 

b. Class I partial permits for Hg at gold mines (NDEP) 

c. New emissions reduction credit program (NDEP) 

d. Washoe/Clark medical marijuana permitting 

e. Other permitting issues (All) 

4. Monitoring Updates (All)(25 minutes) 

a. Exceptional Events Rule Revision; Wildfire/Ozone Guidance 

b. Network Updates (request updates from each agency)(15 min) 

i. Clark County (including Near Road Update) 

ii. Washoe (Spanish Springs SPM) 

iii. NDEP (GBNP Monitor) 

c. TSA updates (EPA)(5 min) 

5. Break (15 minutes) 

6. NAAQS/2015 Ozone Standard (45)

a. NAAQS Summary Table(5) 

b. 2015 Ozone NAAQS (EPA)(10 min) 

i. Overview of changes 

ii. Review of 2014 and preliminary 2015 design values 

c. Background Ozone (15) 

d. Implementation and Planning (15) 

i. Rural Areas 

ii. Ozone Advance, Clark 

iii. Ozone Advance, Washoe

7. Other Pollutant NAAQS/ SIPs/State Plans (30 minutes) 

a. 111(d) plan status/direction (NDEP) 
2 

b. Four-Year SIP Management Plan (All) 

c. SO2 Data Requirements Rule/Area Designations (NDEP) 

d. SIPs status (All) 

i. PM10 

ii. CO 

iii. i-SIPs 

iv. Conformity SIPs 

 

8. Lunch (30 minutes) 

9. Special Studies (30 minutes) 

a. Low emission vehicles (Clark County) 

10. Pahrump Report (NDEP) (10 min) 

11. Mobile Sources / DERA (15 min) 

a. AB 146 study to review/modernize Nevada’s I/M program 

b. DERA update 

12. Compliance/Enforcement Updates (40 minutes) 

a. OECA Update (Matt Salazar, EPA) 

b. Truckee Meadows water reclamation facility update (Washoe) 

c. Naturally occurring asbestos (Clark County) 

d. Open discussion of updates (All)

13. Future Meetings (5 minutes) 

14. Other Information Sharing 

Participants 

- EPA: Elizabeth Adams, Amy Zimpfer, Matt Lakin, Karina OConnor, Gerardo Rios, Matt 

Salazar and Meredith Kurpius 

- NDEP: Jeffrey Kinder, Danilo Dragoni, Adele Malone, Sig Jaunarajs, Daren 

Winkelman, Lisa Kremer, Reka Aczel, Travis Osterhout 

- Washoe County: Charlene Albee, Dan Inouye, Mike Wolf 

- Clark County: Marci Henson, Mike Sword, Richard Beckstead, Phil Wiker, Chuck 

Richter, Russell Roberts
[No. 20806-1-III.

Division Three.

December 19, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ryan R. Lester, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 01-1-01721-8, Richard J. Schroeder, J., entered January 17, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, J., concurred in by Kato, A.C.J., and Schultheis, J.
§ 1952.5 North Carolina. ( a ) The North Carolina State plan received initial approval on February 1, 1973.
( b ) The North Carolina State plan received final approval on December 18, 1996.
( c ) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in *AFL-CIO* v. *Marshall,* compliance staffing levels (“benchmarks”) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, North Carolina, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised benchmarks of 50 safety and 27 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on January 17, 1986. In June 1990, North Carolina reconsidered the information utilized in the initial revision of its 1980 benchmarks and determined that changes in local conditions and improved inspection data warranted further revision of its benchmarks to 64 safety inspectors and 50 industrial hygienists. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on June 4, 1996.
( d ) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit *http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/north_carolina.html .*
# EUR-Lex - 32000R1577 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R1577

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1577/2000 of 19 July 2000 setting the conversion rate applicable to certain direct aids whose operative event is 1 July 2000 **

*
Official Journal L 181 , 20/07/2000 P. 0037 - 0038 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1577/2000

of 19 July 2000

setting the conversion rate applicable to certain direct aids whose operative event is 1 July 2000

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro(1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1410/1999(2), amending Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 laying down detailed rules for the application of the agrimonetary system for the euro in agriculture(3), and in particular Article 2 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The operative event for the conversion rate applicable to aid for arable crops and grain legumes is the commencement of the marketing year in respect of which the aid is granted, as laid down in Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2808/98, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1410/1999.

(2) The aforementioned conversion rate is defined in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 as the average, calculated pro rata temporis, of the exchange rates applicable during the month preceding the date of the operative event, which is 1 July 2000.

(3) The conversion rate to be applied for the purposes of the aid for hops provided for in Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 191/2000(5), is also defined by Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1793/93 regarding the operative event for the agricultural conversion rates used in the hops sector(6), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1410/1999,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The conversion rate to be applied to:

- the aid referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 whose operative event is 1 July 2000 and

- the aid for hops provided for in Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71

is set out in the Annex.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 19 July 2000.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 164, 30.6.1999, p. 53.

(3) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998, p. 36.

(4) OJ L 175, 4.8.1971, p. 1.

(5) OJ L 23, 28.1.2000, p. 4.

(6) OJ L 163, 6.7.1993, p. 22.

ANNEX

Conversion rates applicable to the aid referred to in Article 1

EUR 1 = (average for 1 June 2000 - 30 June 2000)

>TABLE>
#### STATE ex HILE v ZANGERLE et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10142.

Decided December 9, 1929

Mr. Geo. D. Hile, Esq., Cleveland, for State ex Hile.

Messrs. R. T. Miller, Esq., and D. R. Hertz, Esq., Cleveland, for Zangerle et.

LEMERT, P. J. and SHERICK, J. (5th Dist) sitting.

LEMERT, PJ.

The question is submitted to this court as to whether or not the attorney fees were awarded as a part of the costs. The attorney fees awarded by the Court of Common Pleas were made under and by virtue of 2923 GC.

We believe the language of this statute is plain, clear and unambiguous and there can be no doubt but that the language means that the taxpayer shall be allowed his costs which may include a reasonable compensation to his attorney. It, therefore, follows that it is reasonable to conclude that the intendment of the legislature in the above statute was to mean that a reasonable compensation for the attorney bringing the suit shall be included in the costs.

It is not necessary for us to resort to common law definition for the term “costs”, as the statute clearly indicates that the word or' term costs as used in the statute includes attorney fees.

We must not lose sight of the fact in this case that the finding and judgment of the Common Pleas Court was taken to the Court of Appeals on appeal. Therefore, it must follow that the effect of such appeal proceedings upon the previous decree of the Common Pleas Court was to substitute for the decree of the Common Pleas Court the decree of the Court of Appeals, keeping in mind that an appeal brings up the whole case and transfers to the appellate court every question between the parties. It, therefore, follows that a-proper view of the effect of the decree of the Court of Appeals upon the decree of the Common Pleas Court is that the decree of the Court of Appeals completely supplants and takes the place of the decree of the lower court. It, therefore, follows that the decree of the lower court as to costs must give way to the decree *90of the higher court on the same subject matter.

As shown by the record the facts are that the Court of Appeals not only refused its decree to award attorney fees but went further and assessed the costs against the plaintiff. - We, therefore, hold that the demurrer submitted in the court below in this case was properly sustained.

Therefore, the finding and judgment of the court below will be affirmed and plaintiff’s petition dismissed. Exceptions may be noted.

Sherick, J., concurs. Houck, J., not participating-.
§ 1917.123 Illumination.[9] ( a ) Working and walking areas shall be illuminated. Unless conditions described in the regulations of the United States Coast Guard (33 CFR 126.15(1) and (n), and 33 CFR 154.570) exist in the case of specific operations, illumination in active work areas (for example, cargo transfer points) shall be of an average minimum light intensity of 5 foot-candles. The illumination in other work areas (for example, farm areas) shall be of an average minimum light intensity of 1 foot-candle except for security purposes when a minimum light intensity of 1 ⁄ 2 foot-candle shall be maintained. Where occasional work tasks require more light than that which is consistently and permanently provided, supplemental lighting shall be used.
( b ) The lighting intensity shall be measured at the task/working surface, in the plane in which the task/working surface is present.
( c ) Lights shall, so far as possible, be placed so that they will not shine in the eyes of employees.
[48 FR 30909, July 5, 1983, as amended at 62 FR 40201, July 25, 1997] Footnotes -
1917.123
[9] The United States Coast Guard, at 33 CFR 126.15(1) and (n), and 33 CFR 154.570 sets out requirements for illumination at “designated waterfront facilities” and “large oil transfer facilities.”
#### ROBINSON etc v SCHRODY

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Monroe Co

Decided December, 1929

Lynch & Sawyers, Woodsfield, for Robinson, etc.

Kremer & McKisson, Woodsfield, for Schrody.

*136FARR, J.

As controlling here, reference may be had to the case of Kling, Admr. etc. v. Bordner, 65 OS., 86.

To the same effect, it is held in Laudt, Sr., et al., v. Parchmann, 7 Oh. App., 164.

From the foregoing, it becomes clear that the memorandum in writing must be sufficiently definite as to permit the location of the property by the memorandum itself, or by reference to some other instrument in writing, to which it refers.

It is readily apparent that such is not the instant case. In that, the above memorandum simply refers to 3 acres, more or less 'of land, and 12 acres of coal formerly owned by C. R. Mann of Grays-ville, Ohio. However, Mann might have owned that much land, and that much coal anywhere on the face of the globe and it is apparent that it could not be located from such description.

The cases to which attention is called by plaintiff in error do not sustain plaintiff in error’s contention. It follows, therefore, that the judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Pollock and Roberts, JJ., concur.
#### STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. DINK ROSS, Appellant.

Springfield Court of Appeals,

April 1, 1912.

CRIMINAL LA,W: Appeal and Error. Where the defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction in a criminal action hut filed no bill of exceptions and there was no error in the record proper, the judgment will be affirmed.

Appeal from Dent Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *L. B. Woodside,*Judge.

Affirmed.

J. *D. Gustin*for appellant.

*L. T. McGee,*Prosecuting Attorney, *E. W: Bennett,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

COX, J.

Defendant was tried in the circuit court of Dent county, August 23, 1911, upon a charge of felonious assault, convicted of common assault and has appealed. No bill of exceptions was filed and the record proper is free from error. Judgment affirmed.

All concur.