alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute - U.S. Department ofEnergy ARI - DOEIntroductory Meeting on Commercial RefrigerationlFreezers & Beverage MerchandisersN endingMachines Thursday, March 6, 2003, 10:00 am at Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute (ARI) 4100 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22203 Participants: ARI: Deborah Miller, Karim Amrane, and Bill Tritsis

AGENDA DOE: BryanBerringer, Brian Card, Mike Rivest (NCI), and Aris Marantan (NCI)

1. Introduction
a. DOE Team Members b. ARIICRMD Members 2. Overview & Purpose ofMeeting 3. Status ofDOE'sevaluation ofneed for standards for commercial refrigeration products.
a. Background (Priority Setting Report) b. Rulemaking Process c. Description ofProduct Categories Being Considered d. Methodology for Energy Use Analysis 4. ARI

- Currentefforts 5. Summary ofinformation that may be requested in the future from ARIICRMD members to facilitate the rulemaking process.
a. Supportin the form ofinput and comment on issues relating to commercial refrigeration. 1. For example: coverage ofproducts, energy use and energy savings analysis, development oftest procedures, development of standards, etc. b. Data or information from member companies to assist in analysis ofthe industry. 1. For example: shipment data, niche product information, typical energy usage, etc.
August 3, 2016

In accordance with the enclosed Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 3rd day of August, 2016.

10-14-00221-CR	NOE LANCIEGO COSINO v. THE STATE OF TEXAS - ON APPEAL FROM THE 361ST DISTRICT COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. 12-02466-CRF-361 – AFFIRMED - Opinion by Justice Davis:

	“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the judgment, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that the judgment be in all things affirmed and that the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(Nos. 333-06297, 333-43296, 333-56284, 333-59379, 333-62130, 333-105140, 333-106409, 333-120932,
333-135399, and 333-151488) and Form S-3 (No. 166789) of ArthroCare Corporation our report dated February 14, 2011 relating to the financial
statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Austin, TX
February 14, 2011

---



QuickLinks
§ 76.105 Notification. ( a ) In order to exercise exclusivity rights pursuant to § 76.101, distributors or television stations shall notify each cable television system operator of the exclusivity sought in accordance with the requirements of this section. Syndicated program exclusivity notices shall include the following information: ( 1 ) The name and address of the party requesting exclusivity and the television broadcast station or other party holding the exclusive right;
( 2 ) The name of the program or series (including specific episodes where necessary) for which exclusivity is sought;
( 3 ) The dates on which exclusivity is to begin and end.
( b ) : Broadcasters entering into contracts which contain syndicated exclusivity protection shall notify affected cable systems within sixty calendar days of the signing of such a contract. A broadcaster shall be entitled to exclusivity protection beginning on the later of: ( 1 ) The date specified in its notice to the cable television system; or
( 2 ) The first day of the calendar week (Sunday through Saturday) that begins 60 days after the cable television system receives notice from the broadcaster;
( c ) In determining which programs must be deleted from a television broadcast signal, a cable television system operator may rely on information from any of the following sources published or otherwise made available. ( 1 ) Newspapers or magazines of general circulation;
( 2 ) A television station whose programs may be subject to deletion. If a cable television system asks a television station for information about its program schedule, the television station shall answer the request: ( i ) Within ten business days following the television station's receipt of the request; or
( ii ) Sixty days before the program or programs mentioned in the request for information will be broadcast; whichever comes later.
( 3 ) The distributor or television station requesting exclusivity.
( d ) In the event the exclusivity specified in paragraph (a) of this section has been limited or has ended prior to the time specified in the notice, the distributor or broadcaster who has supplied the original notice shall, as soon as possible, inform each cable television system operator that has previously received the notice of all changes from the original notice. In the event the original notice specified contingent dates on which exclusivity is to begin and/or end, the distributor or broadcaster shall, as soon as possible, notify the cable television system operator of the occurrence of the relevant contingency. Notice to be furnished “as soon as possible” under this paragraph shall be furnished by telephone, telegraph, facsimile, overnight mail or other similar expedient means.
[65 FR 68101, Nov. 14, 2000, as amended at 83 FR 7627, Feb. 22, 2018]
#### § 73.1 Scope.

This subpart contains those rules which apply exclusively to the AM broadcast service and are in addition to those rules in Subpart H which are common to all AM, FM and TV broadcast services, commercial and noncommercial.

[47 FR 8587, Mar. 1, 1982]
404 A.2d 1353

#### Commonwealth v. Glover, Appellant.

Submitted March 29, 1978.

Benjamin Lerner, Public Defender, for appellant; Robert B. Lawler, Assistant District Attorney, Chief, Appeals Division, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

JACOBS, former P. J., and HOFFMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
No. 10-1464.

#### Hertz Corp. *v.*Myers.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.17
AGREEMENT NUMBER: 2015003
ADDENDUM #3


QUOTA SHARE REINSURANCE AGREEMENT


made between


OMEGA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY


(hereinafter referred to as the “Reinsured”)


and


WYNDHAM INSURANCE COMPANY (SAC) LIMITED,


in respect of its Segregated Account AX (hereinafter referred to as the “Reinsurer”)




WHEREAS the Reinsured and the Reinsurer entered into a Quota Share Reinsurance Agreement effective January 1, 2015;


AND WHEREAS the Reinsured and the Reinsurer now desire to further amend the Quota Share Reinsurance Agreement to take effect as of January 1, 2017;




In consideration of the covenants and agreements contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


Amendment of Article 8


Effective January 1, 2017, Article 8 of the Quota Share Reinsurance Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the following shall be substituted in its place:
ARTICLE 8 CEDING COMMISSION
The Reinsurer will allow the Reinsured a “Ceding Commission” equal to the sum of:
		
	A.
	100% of the commission charged by the producing Broker, plus;


		
	B.
	4.00% of gross premium on the subject Business, representing reimbursement for premium taxes, plus;


		
	C.
	$930,000 for the calendar year ended December 31, 2017, representing the Reinsured’s “Fronting Fee”.


The Fronting Fee component of the Ceding Commission shall be payable in monthly instalments of $77,500.00.









The Fronting Fee component of the Ceding Commission is intended to represent approximately 1.6667% of gross premium on the estimated volume of subject Business, less a $20,000 special project allowance for 2017. The Fronting Fee component of the Ceding Commission will be renegotiated annually, no later than 90 days prior to the calendar year end, or any time during the year when projected gross premiums on the subject Business vary by 15% from the estimated volume of subject Business.
#### Giacinto Scarano, Respondent, *v.*Philip Lemlein, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

February, 1910.)

Trade unions — Contracts between members — Interpretation and construction.

Where two members of a protective union enter into a contract of employment, the contract should be read in the light of the union’s by-laws in so far as they attempt to regulate the' terms of employment of its members, and the contract may be terminated by the employer when by the employee’s default he ceases to be a member in good standing and the by-laws contain' a provision that it shall be the duty of .every member to refuse to perform in any orchestra or band in which any person or persons are engaged who are not members in good standing.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fifth district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of- the plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

William A. McQuaid, for appellant.

Worden E. Winne (Harland B. Tibbetts, of counsel), for respondent.

Lehman, J.

The plaintiff was employed by defendant as a member of his orchestra at Luna Park for the summer of 1906. ' Both the plaintiff and the defendant were members of the Musical Mutual Protective Union. The union’s by-laws provided that “ it shall be the duty of every member to refuse to perform in any orchestra or band in which any person or persons are engaged who are not members in good standing.”

In July, the plaintiff had some trouble with the union; and, according to his own story, the defendant said, “ You are suspended from the union.” The plaintiff then said he didn’t know anything about it; and defendant said,- “ I am very sorry; from this day your services are not required.” *175Later plaintiff testified that defendant added, “ unless you fix with the union.” Plaintiff claims that he never was notified that he was expelled from the union, and defendant’s evidence on that point was incompetent; but plaintiff stated that “ Before I was suspended he asked me if he would not pay for me that fine and I said no, because I am right. I don’t want to have any obligation to anybody.”

Disregarding the defendant’s testimony, we have the plaintiff’s admission that he was fined by the union; that defendant offered to pay the fine; that he was thereafter suspended from the union; and that defendant then told him that he would not require his services until he arranged his trouble with the union.

The trial justice held that this constituted a wrongful discharge.

It seems to me that, where two members of a protective union enter into a contract of employment, there is a presumption that the contract is to be read in the light of the union’s by-laws, in so far as these by-laws attempt to regulate the terms of employment of its members, and that the defendant could properly discharge the plaintiff when, under the by-laws of the union, the plaintiff was precluded from performing his work.

Seabury and Bijur, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
#### § 15.301 Scope.

This subpart sets out the regulations for unlicensed personal communications services (PCS) devices operating in the 1920-1930 MHz band.

[69 FR 77949, Dec. 29, 2004]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"18-1407: GLASSWALL SOLUTIONS LIMITED v. CLEARSWIFT LTD. [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ySgSOQ9guN\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-20-2018-18-1407-glasswall-solutions-limited-v-clearswift-ltd-opinion-nonprecedential-18-1407-opinion-12-20-2018\/\">18-1407: GLASSWALL SOLUTIONS LIMITED v. CLEARSWIFT LTD. [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-20-2018-18-1407-glasswall-solutions-limited-v-clearswift-ltd-opinion-nonprecedential-18-1407-opinion-12-20-2018\/embed\/#?secret=ySgSOQ9guN\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-1407: GLASSWALL SOLUTIONS LIMITED v. CLEARSWIFT LTD. [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"ySgSOQ9guN\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: GLASSWALL SOLUTIONS LIMITED v. CLEARSWIFT LTD. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-1407 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 87.275 Scope of service.

Aeronautical fixed stations provide non-public point-to-point communications service pertaining to safety, regularity and economy of flight. These stations must transmit, without discrimination, messages from aircraft which have entered into cooperative arrangements governing the operation and maintenance of such stations. Aeronautical fixed station licensees are required to transmit, without charge or discrimination, all emergency communications.
Hillsborough

No. 80-441

#### The State of New Hampshire v. Ronald Cormier

June 12, 1981

*Gregory H. Smith,*attorney general *(Paul W. Hodes,*assistant attorney, general, on the brief), by brief for the State.

*James E. Duggan,*of Concord, by brief for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

The defendant, who had been convicted of burglary and released on probation from a criminal commitment to the New Hampshire Hospital, has appealed the revocation of his probation by *Goode,*J., on the ground of abuse of discretion. There was evidence before the court that the defendant, after his release from the hospital, failed to report to his probation officer, was found in his hotel room with a bottle of whiskey, had made inquiries regarding the purchase of a gun, and did not notify his probation officer of a change in his address. This evidence provided a sufficient basis for the action of the court in revoking the defendant’s probation, and we find no abuse of discretion.

*Appeal dismissed; affirmed.*
§ 61.203 Detariffing of competitive local exchange carriers. ( a ) Competitive local exchange carriers shall remove all business data services from their interstate tariffs.
( b ) The detariffing must be completed by August 1, 2020.
[82 FR 25711, June 2, 2017, as amended at 84 FR 38579, Aug. 7, 2019]
#### § 61.134 Concurrences for through services.

An issuing carrier filing rates or regulations for through services between points on its own system and points on another carrier's system (or systems), or between points on another carrier's system (or systems), must list all concurring, connecting or other participating carriers as provided in § 61.54 (f), (g) and (h). A concurring carrier must tender a properly executed instrument of concurrence to the issuing carrier. If rates and regulations of the other carriers engaging in the through service(s) are not specified in the issuing carrier's tariff, that tariff must state where the other carrier's rates and regulations can be found. Such reference(s) must contain the FCC number(s) of the referenced tariff publication(s), the exact name(s) of the carrier(s) issuing such tariff publication(s), and must clearly state how the rates and regulations in the separate publications apply.

[76 FR 43216, July 20, 2011]
#### § 80.711 Use of U.S. Government frequencies.

Alaska-public fixed stations may be authorized to use frequencies assigned to U.S. Government radio stations for communications with Government stations or for coordination of Government activities.
#### DYKE v. MASSETT et al. THE EXPLORER.

No. 13301.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 28, 1951.

Thomas B. Wheeler, New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Walter E. Doane, George M. Ponder, New Orleans, La., for appellees.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and HOLMES and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a judgment *in*rem, in favor of libellants and against the “M/V Explorer” for wages and subsistence, challenges the judgment as without support in the record.

While appellant in his brief puts forward six numbered assignments of error, his attacks upon the judgment are in substance two.

The one of these which, if sustained, would require the reversal and rendition of the judgment as a whole, is that the proof showed not an agreement for wages but one for profit sharing under which the libellants and the charterer, engaged in a joint venture, were to share, on an agreed basis, the profits realized from a voyage or voyages.

The other, in the alternative and going only to a portion of the judgment, is that there was no proof of any agreement for *896subsistence and the amounts allowed as such must be here disallowed.

Upon appellant’s first point, while there is a great deal to be said for appellant’s view that the real agreement between libellant and the charterer was not for wages but for sharing in profits, there is certainly some support in this record for the opposite view, and we are not willing to set the district judge’s findings aside as without adequate basis.

The matter stands differently, however, as to the second point.

No libellant testified, nor did any witness on his behalf testify, that the claimed verbal agreement was for wages and subsistence.

The judgment will be modified by striking from it, as to each of the libellants, the allowance for subsistence, and, as modified, will be affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.
#### § 80.851 Applicability.

The radiotelephone requirements of this subpart are applicable to all compulsory ships which are not required to comply with subpart W of this part in total or in part because they have received an exemption from all or some of the subpart W provisions.

[68 FR 46973, Aug. 7, 2003]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6642
In Re: JAMAL A. AZEEZ, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-54) Submitted: June 19, 2002 Decided: July 10, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamal Azeez, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jamal A. Azeez petitions this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to rule on his pending petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Azeez’s petition does not set forth exceptional circumstances as would warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus at this time. We note, however, that no significant action has been taken in the district court for over seven months. Accordingly, we deny Azeez’s mandamus petition without prejudice to his refiling it should the district court fail to act within a reasonable time. We grant Azeez’s application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and 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.

PETITION DENIED
H

H H H

î î îî

"

" " "

H H

î

H

î

î

" " "

Elizabeth Field Airport

NEW LONDON-M

ONTAUL FERRY

CONN.

N.Y.

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

Long Island

Sound

Little Gull

Island

Great Gull

Island

Constellation Rock

Race Point

Wilderness

Point

Bostwick Point

Little Gull

Reef

Race Rock

Race

Point Ledge

Valiant Rock

The Race

Plum

Island

Gardiners

Island East

Gardiners

Island West

New

London Niantic Mystic

Plum

Island

OE E

Montauk

Point

15'

69

7 50

67

49

66

49

51

45

45

42

45

43 44

12'

70

30"

59

7

61

62

07'

000m 7

7

00'

10'

66

72°

45

7

12'

45

45

2'

46

5'

7

42 E

FEET

72°

45

000 FEET

30"

63

530

000m

44

400

45

41°

67

7

70

FEET

45

10'

64

000

07'

45

69

7

48

45

58

46 750

45

45

41

7

63

65

45

45

1

30"

68

64

45

45

000m

7

62

65

41°

7 7

5'

45

1

45

61

45

000

7

59

7 48 51

7

45

07' 47

30"

47

58

45

45

7

7

41°

43 000 FEET

45

2'

7

72°

45

41°

N

30"

45

60

57

30"

15'

N

7

30"

07'

000m

45

00'

45

45

60

68

72°

510 7

E

360

30"

NEW

YORK

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

PLUM ISLAND OE E QUADRANGLE

NEW YORK-SUFFOLK CO.

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

PLUM ISLAND OE E, NY

2013

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Imagery..................................................NAIP, July 2011

Roads..............................................©2006-2012 TomTom

Names..........................................................GNIS, 2012

Hydrography....................National Hydrography Dataset, 2011

Contours....................................................Not Available

Boundaries....................Census, IBWC, IBC, USGS, 1972 - 2012

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 18T

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: New York Coordinate System of 1983 (long

island zone)

This map was produced to conform with the

National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.7

CONTOURS NOT PRESENT BECAUSE AVAILABLE ELEVATION

DATA DO NOT MEET ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0

MILES

1

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

YL

18T

×

Ø

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2013 MAGNETIC NORTH

DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 56 ́

34 MILS

14° 11 ́

252 MILS