alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p110548.eng INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0548 Focus Ready Draft 9/26/2011 ENGINEER: Avcin \ BCS PV (kg/yr): SUBMITTER: Advanced Polymer Technology USE: OTHER USES: MSDS: Yes Label: No

TLV/PEL:

CRSS :

Page 1p110548.eng (EPI). Consumer Use: No SAT (concerns) (09/16/2011): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Ecotox Analog: Health: Migration to groundwater: Negligible PBT rating: P2B2T1 PMN: P1B1T1; Hyd Pdt: P2B2T1 Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation Eco: 1 No releases to Water OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1A NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: P2 Claim:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: 1) # of workers exposed: >1000? 2) >100 workers with >10 mg/day inhalation exposure: Page 2p110548.eng 3) (a) >100 workers w/1-10 mg/day inh. exp. & >100 days/yr: (b) Routine Dermal Cont: >250 workers & >100 days/yr:

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0548 MFG: Manufacture of PMN Number of Sites/ Location: 1 Advanced Polymer Technology Harmony PA 16037 Days/yr: 100 Basis: Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Note SAT concern for dermal and inhalation only. All releases are expected to incineration or landfill. Incineration or Landfill Conservative: 2.0E+2 kg/site-day over 1 day/yr from 1 site or 2.0E+2 kg/yr

RELEASE TOTAL 2.0E+2 kg/yr - all sites

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 3 Basis:

Inhalation: negligible (VP < 0.001 torr)

Dermal: Page 3p110548.eng Exposure to Liquid at 100.00% concentration High End: 1.8E+3 mg/day over 100 days/yr Number of workers (all sites) with dermal exposure: 3 Basis:

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0548 PROC/USE: Number of Sites/ Location: 1 Advanced Polymer Technology Harmony PA 16037 Days/yr: 100 Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Note SAT concern for dermal and inhalation only. All releases are expected to incineration or landfill. Incineration or Landfill High End: 4.0E+1 kg/site-day over 1 day/yr from 1 site or 4.0E+1 kg/yr

Incineration or Landfill Conservative: 2.0E+2 kg/site-day over 1 day/yr from 1 site or 2.0E+2 kg/yr

Page 4p110548.eng

RELEASE TOTAL 2.4E+2 kg/yr - all sites

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 0 Basis: Inhalation:

Dermal:



MEMORANDUM of TELEPHONE CONVERSATION CALL BY: Brandon Smith Organization: ERG for CEB CALL TO: Frank Lucarelli Organization: Advanced Polymer Technology Date: 09/19/2011 Time: 10:30am Phone:

PMN: 11-0548

Page 5
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for the six months ended December 31, 1995 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       9,576,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,609,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   519,000
<INVENTORY>                                 15,878,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,383,000
<PP&E>                                      33,595,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,077,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              70,576,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,661,000
<BONDS>                                      9,990,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,196,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,122,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                70,576,000
<SALES>                                     28,344,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,344,000
<CGS>                                       19,715,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,056,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             616,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,005,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   400,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,605,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,605,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
§ 162.220 Hoover Dam, Lake Mead, and Lake Mohave (Colorado River), Ariz.-Nev. ( a ) *Lake Mead and Lake Mohave; restricted areas* — ( 1 ) *The areas.* That portion of Lake Mead extending 700 feet upstream of the axis of Hoover Dam and that portion of Lake Mohave (Colorado River) extending 4,500 feet downstream of the axis of Hoover Dam.
( 2 ) *The regulations.* The restricted areas shall be closed to navigation and other use by the general public. Only vessels owned by or controlled by the U.S. Government and the States of Arizona and Nevada shall navigate or anchor in the restricted areas: *Provided, however,* The Regional Director, Region 3, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nev., may authorize, by written permit, individuals or groups to navigate or anchor in the restricted areas when it is deemed in the public interest. Copies of said permits must be furnished to the enforcing agencies.
( b ) *Lake Mead; speed regulation.* In that portion of Lake Mead extending 300 feet upstream of the restricted area described in paragraph (a) of this section, a maximum speed of 5 miles per hour shall not be exceeded.
( c ) *Supervision.* The regulations in this section shall be supervised by the District Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[CGD 75-082, 42 FR 51759, Sept. 29, 1977, as amended by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35016, June 19, 2008]
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

February 23, 2017 

v No. 329177 

Mecosta Circuit Court 

JONATHAN JOSEPH GOOD, LC No. 08-006437-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and MARKEY and M. J. KELLY, JJ. 

BORRELLO, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). 

 In this matter the majority denied defendant relief for damages arising out of a break-in to 

the Ace Gun Shop on the basis that such relief was beyond the scope of the remand order. While 

I do not disagree with the basis provided for the decision reached by the majority, because I am 

of the opinion that precedent from our Supreme Court clearly states that Ace Gun Shop is not 

entitled to restitution, I write separately to provide an alternative basis for relief. 

 MCR 7.216(A)(7) empowers this Court to “enter any judgement or order or grant further 

relief or different relief as the case may require.” My review of the record submitted in this 

matter leads me to conclude that defendant was not charged with breaking and entering into the 

Ace Gun Shop, yet he was ordered to pay restitution to Ace Gun Shop for damages incurred as a 

result of defendant’s alleged actions. This is contrary to our Supreme Court’s holding in People 

v McKinley, 496 Mich 410, 413; 852 NW2d 770 (2014) wherein our Supreme Court stated: “In 

this case, we decide whether a trial court’s restitution award that is based solely on uncharged 

conduct may be sustained. We conclude that it cannot.” Our Supreme Court defined “uncharged 

conduct” as “ . . . criminal conduct that the defendant allegedly engaged in that was not relied on 

as a basis for any criminal charge and therefore was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a 

trier of fact.” 496 Mich at 413 n.1. 

 Here, defendant was not charged, much less convicted, of any damage to the Ace Gun 

Shop. However, the trial court in this matter ordered defendant to pay restitution for uncharged 

conduct. Such a ruling is in direct contravention of our Supreme Court’s ruling in McKinley. 

Therefore, I respectfully dissent on this issue and pursuant to McKinley, 496 Mich at 413 and

MCR 7.216(A)(7), I would vacate that portion of the restitution order imposed on defendant 

relating to the Ace Gun Shop. 
-2- 

 I concur with the majority in the remainder of their opinion. 

/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
Editorial Note on Part 157
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 157 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

§ 157.05 Performing calculations for this part. In this part, unless the context requires otherwise: ( a ) Formulas are in the International System of Units (SI);
( b ) Values used in those formulas must be in the International System of Units; and
( c ) Forward and after perpendiculars are located at the forward end and at the after end of the length. The forward perpendicular coincides with the foreside of the stem on the waterline on which the length of the vessel is measured.
###### Editorial Note on Part 159

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 159 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

#### § 159.127 Safety coliform count: Recirculating devices.

Thirty-eight of forty samples of flush fluid from a recirculating device must have less than 240 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters. These samples must be collected in accordance with § 159.123(b) and tested in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136.

[CGD 73-83, 40 FR 4624, Jan. 30, 1975, as amended by CGD 75-213, 41 FR 15326, Apr. 12, 1976]
§ 137.10 How are terms used in this part defined? ( a ) The following terms have the same definitions as in 33 U.S.C. 2701: *damages*; *discharge*; *incident*; *liable* or *liability*; *oil*; *owner or operator*; and *removal costs.*
( b ) As used in this part— *Abandoned property* means a property that, because of its general disrepair or lack of activity, a reasonable person could believe that there is an intent on the part of the current owners to surrender their rights to the property.
*Adjoining property* means real property the border of which is shared in part or in whole with that of the subject property or that would be shared in part or in whole with that of the property but for a street, road, or other public thoroughfare separating the properties.
*Data gap* means a lack of, or inability to, obtain information required by subpart B of this part despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional or persons specified in § 137.1(a), as appropriate, to gather the information under § 137.33.
*Environmental professional* means an individual who meets the requirements of § 137.25.
*Facility* means any structure, group of structures, equipment, or device (other than a vessel) which is used for one or more of the following purposes: exploring for, drilling for, producing, storing, handling, transferring, processing, or transporting oil. This term includes any motor vehicle, rolling stock, or pipeline used for one or more of these purposes.
*Good faith* means the absence of any intention to seek an unfair advantage or to defraud another party; an honest and sincere intention to fulfill one's obligations in the conduct or transaction concerned.
*Institutional controls* means non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and/or legal controls, that help to minimize the potential for human exposure to oil discharge and/or protect the integrity of a removal action.
*Relevant experience* means participation in the performance of all-appropriate-inquiries investigations, environmental site assessments, or other site investigations that may include environmental analyses, investigations, and remediation which involve the understanding of surface and subsurface environmental conditions and the processes used to evaluate these conditions and for which professional judgment was used to develop opinions regarding conditions indicative of the presence or likely presence of oil at the facility and the real property on which the facility is located.
§ 110.131 Sheepscot River in the vicinity of Edgecomb, Maine. ( a ) *Anchorage grounds.* All of the waters enclosed by a line starting from a point located at the southwestern end of Davis Island at latitude 43°59.655′ N., longitude 69°39.617′ W.; thence to latitude 43°59.687′ N., longitude 69°39.691′ W.; thence to latitude 43°59.847′ N., longitude 69°39.743′ W.; thence to latitude 43°59.879′ N., longitude 69°39.559′ W.; thence to latitude 43°59.856′ N., longitude 69°39.488′ W.; thence to latitude 43°59.771′ N., longitude 69°39.585′ W.; thence to the point of beginning. DATUM: NAD 83
( b ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) This anchorage is reserved for vessels of all types, with drafts of 3 to 12 feet.
( 2 ) These anchorage grounds are authorized for use from May through October.
( 3 ) Vessels are limited to a maximum stay of 1 week.
( 4 ) Fixed moorings, piles or stakes are prohibited.
( 5 ) Vessels must not anchor so as to obstruct the passage of other vessels proceeding to or from other anchorage spaces.
( 6 ) Anchors must not be placed in the channel and no portion of the hull or rigging of any anchored vessel shall extend outside the limits of the anchorage area.
( 7 ) The anchorage of vessels is under the coordination of the local Harbormaster.
[CGD01-07-011, 72 FR 70514, Dec. 12, 2007]
§ 541.303 Teachers. ( a ) The term “employee employed in a bona fide professional capacity” in section 13(a)(1) of the Act also means any employee with a primary duty of teaching, tutoring, instructing or lecturing in the activity of imparting knowledge and who is employed and engaged in this activity as a teacher in an educational establishment by which the employee is employed. The term “educational establishment” is defined in § 541.204(b).
( b ) Exempt teachers include, but are not limited to: Regular academic teachers; teachers of kindergarten or nursery school pupils; teachers of gifted or disabled children; teachers of skilled and semi-skilled trades and occupations; teachers engaged in automobile driving instruction; aircraft flight instructors; home economics teachers; and vocal or instrumental music instructors. Those faculty members who are engaged as teachers but also spend a considerable amount of their time in extracurricular activities such as coaching athletic teams or acting as moderators or advisors in such areas as drama, speech, debate or journalism are engaged in teaching. Such activities are a recognized part of the schools' responsibility in contributing to the educational development of the student.
( c ) The possession of an elementary or secondary teacher's certificate provides a clear means of identifying the individuals contemplated as being within the scope of the exemption for teaching professionals. Teachers who possess a teaching certificate qualify for the exemption regardless of the terminology (e.g., permanent, conditional, standard, provisional, temporary, emergency, or unlimited) used by the State to refer to different kinds of certificates. However, private schools and public schools are not uniform in requiring a certificate for employment as an elementary or secondary school teacher, and a teacher's certificate is not generally necessary for employment in institutions of higher education or other educational establishments. Therefore, a teacher who is not certified may be considered for exemption, provided that such individual is employed as a teacher by the employing school or school system.
( d ) The requirements of § 541.300 and Subpart G (salary requirements) of this part do not apply to the teaching professionals described in this section.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-2168

BUD WILLIE LEE BELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.

(2:06-cv-02971-HFF)

Submitted: August 7, 2008 Decided: September 9, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bud Willie Lee Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Michael A.

Thomas, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bud Willie Lee Bell appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming

the Defendant’s decision to deny Bell disability insurance

benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Bell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 2:06-cv02971-HFF (D.S.C. Oct. 31, 2007). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 582 

Recognizing the work and accomplishments of Mr. Herbert Saffir, inventor 

of the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, during Hurricane Preparedness Week. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2008 

Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself and Mr. NELSON of Florida) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the work and accomplishments of Mr. Herbert 

Saffir, inventor of the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, 

during Hurricane Preparedness Week. 

Whereas Mr. Herbert Saffir protected countless individuals 

by conveying the threat levels of approaching hurricanes 

through a 5-tier system to measure hurricane strength; 

Whereas the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale has become the 

definitive means to describe hurricane strength; 

Whereas Mr. Saffir, as a civil and structural engineer, was 

a pioneer in designing buildings and bridges for high 

wind resistance; 

Whereas Mr. Saffir, as a participant in a United Nations 

project in 1969, helped to reduce hurricane damage to 

low-cost buildings worldwide; 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 582 IS 

Whereas Mr. Saffir was the principal of Saffir Engineering 

in Coral Gables, Florida; 

Whereas Mr. Saffir fought tirelessly for safe building codes 

to ensure the safety of all people threatened by hurricanes; 

Whereas Mr. Saffir was born in New York City, New York, 

on March 29, 1917, and died in Miami, Florida, on November 21, 2007; and 

Whereas Hurricane Preparedness Week is observed the week 

beginning May 25, 2008: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the work and accomplishments of 

3 Mr. Herbert Saffir, inventor of the Saffir-Simpson 

4 Hurricane Scale, during Hurricane Preparedness 

5 Week; 

6 (2) honors Mr. Saffir’s commitment to alerting 

7 the citizenry of the threat of hurricanes; 

8 (3) thanks Mr. Saffir for his dedication, which 

9 has undoubtedly helped to save countless lives and 

10 the property of citizens around the world; and 

11 (4) commends Mr. Saffir’s service to the State 

12 of Florida, the United States, and the world. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### Paul v. Smiley.

Argued Thursday, October 26th, 1815.

Ejectment — Issue Joined on Title — Verdict—Description of Land — Sufficiency*—Case at Bar. — Issue being joined in ejectment on the title only, a verdict may be found, and judgment rendered, for a tract of land, “according to a survey filed in the cause,” though described, in the commencement of the declaration, as a “messuage, with the appurtenances;” in a subsequent part thereof as “the *227said tenement, witti its appurtenances;" and. in the conclusion, as “the plaintiff’s said farm.” ■without mentioning- quantity or boundaries.

In ejectment the declaration, in its commencement, described the land in controversy as one “messuage with the appurtenances,” afterwards, as “the said tenement,” and, in the concluding part, as “the said farm with its appurtenances.” On the general issue, a verdict was found in these words ; “We of the jury find that the boundary of the patent under which the defendant John Paul claims, and which issued to his father, John Paul, senior, deceased, dated the first day of June, 1741, for 400 acres of land, is as follows, to wit: Beginning at the corner R. on the platt of survey filed in this cause, made out by Andrew Alexander, and dated the 10th day of April, 1812, and running thence, with the black dotted, and black drawn line, on said platt, to the corner C. ; — thence, with the black drawn line, to the corner at O.. where a former hickory stood ; thence, with the dotted black line, to the letter P., a corner on Borden’s line ; and thence to the beginning. We further find for the plaintiff his term unexpired in the land in the declaration mentioned, and one cent damages.” Judgment was rendered, “that the plaintiff recover against the defendant his term yet to come of and in the messuage and land, with the appurtenances, in the declaration mentioned,” &c.

The defendant appealed to this court.

Wickham, for the appellant,

contended, that the declaration *in ejectment, being for “a messuage,” or for a “tenement,” with the appurtenances, the plaintiff could not recover a tract of land ; in support of which position, he cited 2 Saund. 401, note (2); 1 Bos. & Pull. 53, Buck v. Nurton; 1 East. 441, Doe, lessee of Bradshaw, v. Plowman; and 2 Chitty, 394.

Heigh contra,

relied on the act of assembly, (Rev. Code, 1st vol. ch. 76, sect. 35, p. 112,) as conclusive, that, after issue joined on the title only, no advantage can be taken of any defect, in form or substance, in the declaration in ejectment.

Wickham in reply.

I do not say that the declaration is defective, but that a tract of land cannot be recovered upon a declaration for a house.

Wednesday, November 1st,

*

See monographic *note*on “Ejectment” appended to Tapscott v. Cobbs, 11 Gratt. 172.

The principal case was cited with approval in Myers v. Ford, 9 W. Va. 188; Williams v. Ewart, 29 W. Va. 671, 2 S. E. Rep. 881.

the court affirmed the judgment.