alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
APPENDIX 12B. MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS 

SMALL BUSINESS INTERVIEW GUIDE 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

12B.1 MIA Interview Guide for Small Businesses 12B-1 

12B-i
12B.1 MIA Interview Guide for Small Businesses 

Distribution Transformer 

Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis Interview Guide for Small Businesses 

1. Are you aware of the US Department of Energy’s on-going rulemaking to establish national 

minimum efficiency standards for distribution transformers?1

 Would you like to be added to 

the DOE’s email database for updates relating to this rulemaking? 

2. We are assessing the potential impacts of a potential minimum efficiency standard on small 

businesses. Is your company a small business (defined as less than 750 employees, including all 

subsidiaries and parent companies, and employees in all countries where you operate)? 

3. Does your company manufacture LV dry-type, MV dry-type, and/or liquid-immersed 

distribution transformers? How many different kVA ratings and designs do you produce 

within these three major groupings? 

4. Are you familiar with NEMA’s TP-1 / the ENERGY STAR voluntary standard? Are any of your 

products TP-1 compliant? If so, what percent of your sales does this represent? 

5. Would a TP-1 standard, mandated by the US DOE (whereby all your competitors would also 

required to meet the same standard), cause any burdens on your business? 

6. What if the US DOE required an efficiency standard higher than TP-1? Would that change 

your answer to #5? Please consider costs such as new designs, capital investment, prototype 

testing, and marketing that might be required. 

7. Are there any reasons that a small business such as yours might be at a competitive 

disadvantage relative to a larger business under mandatory efficiency standards? Please 

consider such factors as technical expertise, capital budgets, bulk purchasing power for 

material inputs (e.g., electrical steels), etc. 

8. Would the Department’s proposed test procedure impose an undue burden on small business 

(explanation required)?2

 Please consider such factors as technician time, statistical expertise, 

reporting burden, etc. 

 

1

 For information on the US DOE’s efficiency standards rulemaking for distribution transformers, visit: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transformers_anopr.html 

2

 For information on the US DOE’s draft test procedure for distribution transformers, visit: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution_transformers_snopr.html 

12B-1
Belknap

No. 6659

#### State of New Hampshire v. Robert B. Green

May 30, 1975

*Warren B. Rudman,*attorney general, and *James L. Kruse,*attorney *(Mr. Kruse*orally), for the State.

*William P. Shea,*by brief and orally, for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

Defendant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. His exception to the refusal of the court to exclude the actual result of a blood test and limit the evidence to the fact that the test of his blood exceeded the amount required to establish a prima facie case was transferred by *Keller,*C.J. RSA 262-A:63 (Supp. 1973) states that the court may admit evidence of the amount of alcohol in defendant’s blood and that evidence of ten hundredths percent “or more” is prima facie evidence of intoxication. We find no merit in the contention that the actual result of the blood test be excluded. Trial judges are capable of preventing any improper use of the evidence in argument or otherwise.

*Exception overruled.*

Kenison, C.J., did not sit.
.. . . . .

OFFICEOF THEATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS AUSTIN ” ., Ffonorable Tham Aa County Attoraw 

### Liberty

Ceuntr Liberty, !hzar

Your two lettera ur exosllent brirfr

d expenfsea*when otiloial busi

### rat Court at rt 18 authoryment **or** the **Auditor** that hs m&p incur outalde of the County au for instance, expenes* ror a trip to hustln.wIionorablo T~OQI~S A. Cheat, Page t With r4fbreao4 to y4ur fir46 question qud4e aboQ4, ub4rt7 Count7 fqvmhter under the tfclnsral road law or this titatr,rind~4 have been unable to rind any rtatutary authority ivhioh would allou th4 aoamismion4rrr of Liberty county sxgana48 whils trcvellng cut oil the oouaty on ofrioi61 buein44s. Th:6 depertrasathas repeatwIly held upon a numberof queetlone alailar to the question prenontad b7 7411that In the abssnno of a talld l tatuh,

the Corrmisaionere~ Court b4s no authority to allow ~knny awn of mm47 to lta memberr 

### rar4xpens48.

In this eonn4o~ion, w4 cr4 aneloslng herewith for your hr0ns6tion copieror opinionsHO*. O-755 8114 O-lQE6. With-r4rerenor to your eeoond quest&m, w4 hcv4 been *snable to rind any etatute whloh authorizer the pa?- lnent to the county auditor of any eqwmas fnuurred by him ai14 traveling, either within or rfthout the aounty, on orrlofal bneineaa. l%ererore, your'ssame question I4 

### anitwer4d

In the ne*.tiv4. 

### ,\ : Trusting that tha above eatlefaotorily amwere your Znqulrias, wo r4smin

D. Burl8 Devler Asaietsnt
Measuring Social Isolation

Identifying Social Isolation and Loneliness 

in a Population

There is no “gold standard” for identifying social 

isolation and/or loneliness. Some of the most commonly 

used tools include:

■ UCLA Loneliness Index

■ Lubben Social Network Scale

■ Berman-Syme Index

■ Duke Social Support Index

There are multiple measurement tools, each with 

different strengths and weaknesses. All scales have 

benefits and drawbacks, and most were developed for 

research purposes.

A key aspect of selecting a 

tool is standardization within 

a specific organization so 

that everyone uses the same 

validated tool or set of tools. 

Standardization also ensures that no one uses only parts 

of existing tools or creates a new, unvalidated tool. 

While some variation in choice may be needed for 

specific populations or health conditions, the chosen 

tool needs to match the concept being measured. 

(That is, if assessing for loneliness, you need to use a 

tool that has been validated specifically for measuring 

loneliness, as opposed to another aspect of social 

connection). It’s important to recognize that neither one 

of these measures alone will adequately assess the 

overall level and quality of a person’s social connection.

National Academies of Science Consensus 

Study Recommendations

■ Identification allows better targeting of 

specific clinical and public health interventions 

as well as high-need regions and populations.

■ Social isolation and loneliness may fluctuate 

over a period of weeks, months, or years. 

Serial testing can help to ascertain changes 

over time.

■ Existing tools must be updated (or new ones 

developed) to fully capture the experience of 

today’s older adults.

■ More research related to assessment is 

needed to determine specific implementation 

parameters, including who should conduct 

the assessment, the ideal frequency of 

assessment for different subpopulations, 

and the mechanisms for performing these 

assessments (e.g., annual wellness visit, 

during discharge planning).

Lessons Learned from Data Collection

When collecting data to measure social isolation, 

organizations need to:

■ Obtain consent from participants.

■ Collect data in ways that honor privacy and 

comfort, consider access to technology, and 

that are accurate and efficient.

■ Store data and match baseline results (presurveys) to follow-up results (post-surveys).

■ Clean the data. Decide ahead of time how to 

address common issues like what to do when 

a question has been skipped.

■ Analyze data to understand who is at highest 

risk and to detect any changes over time.

Visit ACL.gov/CommitToConnect for more on how to stay connected.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. DWAYNE MICHAEL LAUKA,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 303 71 D.C. No. 2:00

- cr - 00368

- JCC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016 ** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Dwayne Michael Lauka appeals from the district court’ s judgment and challenges the 35

- month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Lauka contends that his t erm of supervised releas e exceeds the maximum

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, C LERK U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 30371

period authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h)

. Specifically, he claims that the district court failed to reduce his supervised release term by 24 months to reflect the 24

- month term of imprisonment that he served upon revocation of his su pervised release in the Districts of Oregon and Eastern California. We disagree. Lauka’s sentence in the instant case is based on his violations of the supervised release conditions imposed following his conviction in the Western District of Washington; he is not entitled to credit for the post

- revocation sentence imposed in connection with his convictions in the Districts of Oregon and Eastern California. See United States v. Hertler , 776 F.3d 680, 684 (9th Cir. 2015) (section 3583(h)’s reference to “any term of imprisonment” refers to the post

- revocation terms of imprisonment imposed with respect to the same underlying offense). Lauka next contends that the district court failed to c onsider the sentencing factors and explain adequately its reasons for imposing the term of supervised release. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district
court considered onl y the proper 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e ) sentencing factors and adequately explained its reasons for determining that a term of supervised release was warranted

. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en3 15

- 30371

b anc). Moreover, the s entence is not an abuse of the district court’s discretion in light of the section 3583(e ) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Lauka’s extensive criminal history and breach of the court’s trust

. See
Ga ll v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) ; United States v. Miqbel , 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Alexander’s, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009**(the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|           |   |   |
|----------------|--------|--------|
| August 3, 2009 |   |   | /s/ Steven Roth |
|           |   | Name:  | Steven Roth |
|           |   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
|                |        |        |  |  |
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 323 

Recognizing Kikkoman Foods, Inc., for its 50 years of operations in the 

United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 

Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. FEINGOLD) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing Kikkoman Foods, Inc., for its 50 years of 

operations in the United States. 

Whereas Kikkoman Foods, Inc., is celebrating its 50th anniversary of business in the United States during the year 

2007; 

Whereas Kikkoman Foods established sales operations in San 

Francisco, California, in 1957, expanded production in 

Walworth, Wisconsin, in 1972, and further expanded production in Folsom, California, in 1998; 

Whereas Kikkoman Foods annually ships over 30,000,000 

gallons of soy sauce throughout North America; 

Whereas Kikkoman Foods was one of the first Japanese companies to have a major manufacturing plant in the 

United States and continues to make a steadfast commitVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:48 Sep 21, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR323.IS SR323

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 323 IS 

ment to the economic and culinary vitality of the United 

States; and 

Whereas Kikkoman Foods, throughout its 50-year history in 

the United States, has remained steadfast in its devotion 

to promoting international cultural exchange: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the importance of the contribu3 tions made by Kikkoman Foods, Inc., to the cultural 

4 and economic vitality of the United States; and 

5 (2) commends Kikkoman Foods on its 50 years 

6 of marketing and operations in the United States. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09
- 19
- 00392
- CV

__________________ JONES FAMILY TRUST , Appellant
V.
MONTGOMERY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 284th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 18
- 07
- 09530
- CV

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION On December 10, 2019, we notified the parties that the appeal would be dismissed unless the appellant remitted the filing fee for the appeal. Appellant did not respond. Appellant did not file an affidavit of indigence on appeal and has not shown
th at it is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1.2 There being no satisfactory explanation for the failure to pay the filing fee for the appeal, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on Janua ry 15, 2020 Opinion Delivered January 1 6 , 2020 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35153-35154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13600]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 01/01-0285]


Capital Resource Company of Connecticut; Notice of Surrender of 
License

    Notice is hereby given that Capital Resource Company of Connecticut 
(``CRC''), Two Bridgewater Road, Farmington, Connecticut 06032-2256, 
has surrendered its license to operate as a small business investment 
company under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended 
(the ``Act''). CRC was licensed by the U.S. Small Business 
Administration on March 23, 1977.
    Under the authority vested by the Act and pursuant to the 
regulations promulgated thereunder, the surrender of the license was 
accepted on April 5, 2000, and accordingly, all rights, privileges, and 
franchises derived therefrom have been terminated.


[[Page 35154]]


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, Small 
Business Investment Companies)

    Dated: May 23, 2000.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 00-13600 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### § 125.05 Captain of the Port.

The term *Captain of the Port* means the officer of the Coast Guard, under the command of a District Commander, so designated by the Commandant for the purpose of giving immediate direction to Coast Guard law enforcement activities within the general proximity of the port in which he is situated.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP24-0528 BENNY STEWART,

Petitioner, v. MONTANA SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, HON. ROBERT WHELAN, PRESIDING,

Respondent. GRANT OF MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FILING FEE


### Motion to proceed without payment ofthe filing fee in thismatter is GRANTED. DATED: September 5, 2024.
BOWEN GREENWOOD Clerk ofthe Supreme Court 09/05/2024
Case Number: OP 24-0528
Editorial Note on Part 149
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 149 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 149.103 What are the requirements for discharge containment and removal material and equipment? ( a ) Each deepwater port must have a facility response plan that meets the requirements outlined in part 154, subpart F, of this chapter, and be approved by the cognizant Sector Commander, or MSU Commander with COTP and OCMI authority.
( b ) The facility response plan must identify adequate spill containment and removal equipment for deepwater port-specific spill scenarios.
( c ) Response equipment and material must be pre-positioned for ready access and use on board the deepwater port.
[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39178, July 1, 2013]
Editorial Note on Part 149
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 149 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 149.625 What are the design standards? ( a ) Each component, except for those specifically addressed elsewhere in this subpart, must be designed to withstand at least the combined wind, wave, and current forces of the most severe storm that can be expected to occur at the deepwater port in any 100-year period. Component design must meet a recognized industry standard and be appropriate for the protection of human life from death or serious injury, both on the deepwater port and on vessels calling on or servicing the deepwater port, and for the protection of the environment.
( b ) The applicant or licensee will be required to submit to the Commandant (CG-5P) a design basis for approval containing all proposed standards to be used in the fabrication and construction of deepwater port components.
( c ) Heliports on floating deepwater ports must be designed in compliance with the regulations at 46 CFR part 108.
[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39180, July 1, 2013]
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.47 Clearance gauges. ( a ) Clearance gauges are required for drawbridges across navigable waters of the United States discharging into the Atlantic Ocean south of Delaware Bay (including the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal, DE) or into the Gulf of Mexico (including coastal waterways contiguous thereto and tributaries to such waterways and the Lower Atchafalaya River, LA), except the Mississippi River and its tributaries and outlets,
( b ) Except for provisions in this part which specify otherwise for particular drawbridges, clearance gauges shall be designed, installed, and maintained according to the provisions of § 118.160 of this chapter.
Note:
Clearance gauge requirements, if any, for drawbridges other than those referred to in this section are listed in Subpart B under the appropriate bridge.
[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984, as amended by CGD 84-022, 51 FR 16308, May 2, 1986; CGD 96-026, 61 FR 33664, June 28, 1996]
§ 780.906 Requisites for exemption generally. Section 13(b)(16), in clause (A), provides an exemption from the overtime pay provision of the Act for an employee during any workweek in which all the following conditions are satisfied: ( a ) The employee must be engaged “in the transportation and preparation for transportation of fruits and vegetables”; and
( b ) Such transportation must be transportation “from the farm”; and
( c ) The destination to which the fruits or vegetables are transported must be “a place of first processing or first marketing”; and
( d ) The transportation must be from the farm to such destination “within the same State”.
Original

No. 7113

#### State of New Hampshire v. Danny Slade

May 12, 1975

*Warren B. Rudman,*attorney general, and *Gregory H. Smith,*assistant attorney general *(Mr. Smith*orally), for the State.

*Smith, Welts & Currier*and *Richard E. Boyer (Mr. Boyer*orally) for the defendant.

*225Memorandum Opinion

Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault by a jury and sentenced on December 4, 1974, to no more than three years and not less than one year and one day in State prison. Defendant filed a reserved case seeking the transfer to this court of his exceptions taken during the trial. On December 9, 1974, he filed a motion to stay execution of his sentence and for release on bail pending his appeal. This motion was heard and denied on December 13, 1974. On January 2, 1975, defendant filed a petition in this court for a review under RSA 490:4 (Supp. 1973) of this denial of bail and seeking a transfer to this court of the transcript of the December 13, 1974 hearing for that purpose. On January 2, 1975, this court issued an order that pleadings be filed by the parties on or before January 16, 1975.

Defendant’s petition was heard by this court on May 7, 1975. Although defendant paid on February 13, 1975, the required costs of transcription in the amount of $150, the record of the testimony at the relatively short December 13, 1974 hearing has not yet reached this court. Given that fact and accepting defendant’s allegation that he will not engage in serious misconduct if released on bail, and considering also his conduct while on bail prior to trial, the court makes the following order so as to provide defendant with an opportunity for a meaningful appeal before he becomes eligible for parole in July 1975. This order is made without reference to the trial court’s initial exercise of discretion so as to provide the defendant with an opportunity for a meaningful appeal. *See State v. Booton,*114 N.H. 152, 317 A.2d 18 (1974); ABA Standards, Criminal Appeals § 2.5 (Approved Draft, 1970).

Upon the furnishing of bail by defendant to the superior court in the amount of $2,000, which is double the amount of the pretrial bail, defendant is to be released forthwith from his incarceration in State prison during the pendency of his appeal.

*So ordered.*

*234Miss Vasilike Kounas, executive secretary, New Hampshire Industrial Authority, filed a memorandum.
#### Brown *v.*The State.

Submitted December 1, 1906,

Decided January 15, 1907.

Indictment for assault and battery. Before Judge Geiger. City court of Mount Vernon. October 9, 1906.

*William B. Kent,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. M. Lewis, solicitor,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

1. The evidence supported the verdict.

2. The newly discovered evidence was cumulative or impeaching; no sufficient reason appears why most, if not all, of it was not, or could not,, by the exercise of due diligence, have been known to the accused before-the trial; and no reason appears for granting a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent-*